The Sexual Marketplace And Middle Age

Amongst the younger set of Manosphere bloggers is the idea that a woman over a certain age has no value in the sexual market place (SMP). When a woman hits “the wall”, she is basically not worth a man’s attention. Her sexual market value (SMV) has diminished too much. For younger men who have Charisma and seek youth and its accompanying youthful beauty, I do not disagree.

There are men over a certain age who seek women who are not the young, club-hopping chippies. I am in this category. As I am not in the investment class – note the donate button – I’m quite aware of my own SMV. This being said, I practice Charisma on all adult ages and socio-economic statuses. A guy with an ugly dog, a motorcycle, and Charisma has certain advantages over the typical middle-aged chumpasaurus lacking all of those.

After a certain age, a woman’s N number (the number of turgid cocks she’s touched) becomes less relevant regarding her SMV. In fact, a long-term relationship can re-set her N number back to something much lower. We’re different people when we cross the 40 years old threshold. The twenties are so vastly different that we are completely different people. With age comes a certain mellowing. Men and women alike aren’t collared by libidinous intent as our younger peers. The “M” word (menopause) can get dropped into conversation without instant recoil. Ever date a grandmother? You will. Time is a cruel mistress.

Thankfully, there is hope. Many women work hard to maintain themselves (link below). They work out. They keep their hair long. They maintain their femininity. Be warned, such dames are in relatively short supply and it takes serious Charisma to land them. The attractive 40-something women tend not to have kids or have sufficient income (alimony or “marketing” job?) to afford them the gym, pilates, and yoga. Just be careful of the the cluster B types (link below).

As I wrote just above, a man must have serious Charisma to get those hot 40-somethings. Just showing up won’t cut it. Just being a man won’t cut it. A man must have an arsenal of attraction weapons because, in the end, it really is something of a war in regards to Dating 2.0.

My name is Drew and I approve of this message.

Rate These 40 Somethings

The Clusters – A Warning For Men

About these ads
  1. #1 by Castor Troy on November 5, 2012 - 12:03 PM

    For young guys with charisma who eventually want to settle down with a younger girl, what age do you think is best to start looking for something more long term?

  2. #5 by Young Hunter on November 5, 2012 - 12:07 PM

    I’m still in my 20’s but I have known a good number of women over 40 that could easily pass for early 30’s. I only learned their age because I worked with them.

  3. #6 by deti on November 5, 2012 - 12:23 PM

    “After a certain age, a woman’s N number (the number of turgid cocks she’s touched) becomes less relevant regarding her SMV. In fact, a long-term relationship can re-set her N number back to something much lower. We’re different people when we cross the 40 years old threshold. The twenties are so vastly different that we are completely different people.”

    I think this is true. But I suspect one major reason why N takes on much less relevance into the 40s is because many of the men looking to date these women aren’t looking to make a long-term commitment.

    N becomes relevant only when the man begins investing and committing; or when the woman begins to demand increased investment and commitment.

  4. #7 by Jim on November 5, 2012 - 12:40 PM

    Dude I’m 41 and it’s not the SMV that turns me off to women. It’s the red pill. I’m literally disgusted with them.

  5. #8 by deti on November 5, 2012 - 12:40 PM

    “As I wrote just above, a man must have serious Charisma to get those hot 40-somethings. Just showing up won’t cut it. Just being a man won’t cut it. A man must have an arsenal of attraction weapons because, in the end, it really is something of a war in regards to Dating 2.0″

    I think all this is true as well. But linking to the roosh forum with the photos of the attractive over 40s shows me the women pictured there are pretty rare. These are the more physically attractive 40+s you’ll find. Most women in this cohort are not nearly this attractive or in shape, but they BELIEVE they are still as fabulous as they were at 23.

    And worse, most are divorced and are custodial parents of teenagers. These women are not exactly marriage material, but I’m afraid many of them seem to be looking for husbands, mainly because they want an extra pair of hands to help them around the house and to make ends meet. They are always frazzled, always broke, always fighting with their exes about money or child support or visitation. They say “I want a good man” but what they mean is “I want a husband to help me take care of this house and make the mortgage payment and discipline my 15 year old son who locks himself in his room listening to growl metal and doing god knows what else in there and generally help me with all this shit.”

    Caveat casanova.

    • #9 by Clockwatcher on November 5, 2012 - 2:59 PM

      “As I wrote just above, a man must have serious Charisma to get those hot 40-somethings.”

      This is a generalization.

      I know one very attractive fortysomething who is single and would like to marry. A beautiful face and great legs to start, figure of a 30-year-old, and an elegant, timeless and feminine dresser. She gets approached frequently when out by PUA’s of all ages (from 20’s through to 60s – apparently her actual age is hard to read) but is not looking for “charisma” or an alpha. She is a devout Christian and is looking for a man with the character and value system of her late husband (who was highly educated, kind, and intelligent, but not wealthy or particularly handsome – overweight, for one). She has not been able to find this, and is currently planning to remain single unless she does.

      • #10 by deti on November 5, 2012 - 3:10 PM

        Clock:

        Yes, it is a generalization. Your very attractive 40something devout Christian widow is an outlier, and an extreme one at that. She’ll be able to name her price. Most 40 something women cannot do that. Not even close.

        Clock, you’ll find that generalizations are used in the manosphere. They’re used because they are useful and because experience has borne out those generalizations to be (generally) true, more often than not. One can draw general conclusions about human behavior. From those generalizations we can determine certain “rules” about behavior and male-female relations.

        Your example is the exception, not the rule. Her rarity means she will be able to hold out.

        But most women don’t look like Sophia Loren or Raquel Welch. They look more like Roseanne Barr or Kathy Bates.

      • #11 by deti on November 5, 2012 - 3:17 PM

        If they are lucky, some 40something women can look like Laura Linney (age 48) or Bonnie Hunt (age 51) or Allison Janney (age 53)

        http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001372/ (Hunt)
        http://celebritywonder.ugo.com/html/lauralinney.html (Linney)
        http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0005049/ (Janney)

      • #12 by Clockwatcher on November 5, 2012 - 5:21 PM

        “Your very attractive 40something devout Christian widow is an outlier, and an extreme one at that. She’ll be able to name her price.”

        Thanks for your reply Deti. She probably is an outlier through the combination of genetic lottery and the fact that she looks after herself and cultivates a feminine appearance, however, men that meet her moral standards are not lining up at her door, although PUA’s and unhappily married men are. She feels the man she is looking for is as much an outlier as she is.

        The idea that “women have it easy” or “attractive women can choose” is not true in her experience and she has no evidence that it is true generally despite the claims to the contrary of many men in the Manosphere. Moral of the story: It’s not just the men that are having a hard time finding someone who is up to snuff.

      • #13 by Roland3337 on November 6, 2012 - 12:04 AM

        I knew one such woman. When she was near 20, she was some kind of Miss Michigan/Kansas/Colorado. At 44 years of age in the mid 1990s, she was working as an elementary teacher, going out to bars, and dating relentlessly, trying to find a man to help her. With what, you ask? Home repairs. Her house was falling down around herCar repairs. Some kind of man to help her with her two sons. She could not figure out why guys would take her away for a weekend, and nail her in a hotel, but would not call again. The icing on her melting cake?: One night when I was sharing a few drinks with her at a local bar, she confessed to me that one of her two sons, was fathered by another man. She cuckolded her husband, while they were still married. Being a blue pill man at the time, I did not give it much thought. But now? I see her for what she was. An aging tart that was trying to cash in the last of her SMV.

    • #14 by Infantry on November 6, 2012 - 11:11 PM

      To be fair, I know a 50yo red pill man who remarried with a 45yo divorcee. They both had already had their children.

      She originally got divorced was because her ex-husband had gambling and alcohol addictions, not ‘I’m not happpeeee’. As far as I can tell, there was a reason she was marriage material. She’s quite feminine and follows his leadership.

      The red pill friend had been on the market for 5 years or so, dating as many single moms as he could get his dirty little hands on. He also went to the gym and looks-wise was ahead of the curve in his age group. He knew what he was doing and made the right choice for him.

      What stood out for me, was his lack of bitterness. This was a guy that had been screwed over by his ex and taken to the cleaners over a ‘de-facto’ relationship. That’s where the law considers you legally married if you’ve been living together for six months or more in the country we live in.

      Despite getting the proverbial shaft, he still loved women and wouldn’t project his pain from how he’d been treated by his ex onto all women. That’s an example worth following.

  6. #15 by Vicomte on November 5, 2012 - 1:16 PM

    I’m hoping the cigarettes will kill me before I’m forty, so I won’t have to worry about this shit.

    We call that long term planning.

    • #16 by A♠ on November 5, 2012 - 3:10 PM

      Add a shit-ton whiskey and you have my plan, too.

      I just turned 40; it didn’t work.

      • #17 by Vicomte on November 5, 2012 - 3:23 PM

        Unfortunately, the fifth-a-day plan proved to be a bit too effective, and was prematurely aborted.

        I’m hoping the subsequent esophageal damage will metastasize around 35.

        I have a rendezvous with death, and I will not be late.

  7. #18 by siquaeris on November 5, 2012 - 1:26 PM

    I’m mid-40s. The number of beautiful women in their 40s is a tiny fraction (maybe 5%) of what it is for women in their 20s. Youth can cover up a lot of flaws which almost always make themselves known later on down the line.

    I’ve gotten pretty good at looking at young women, and imagining what they might look like in 20 years. To you young guys looking for marriage, I have 2 pieces of advice:

    1. Seriously rethink marriage. It’s a contract that has terrible implications if it ends. If it doesn’t end, that’s great, but know that you are not immune: marriages do end for a lot of decent guys, and this can happen even in good marriages. If you’re set on getting married, get a pre-nup. They’re not always enforceable, but it can’t hurt to have one. Don’t let your woman emotionally railroad you out of a pre-nup either… if she is able to do this, your weak beta ass deserves what it gets. This is your one chance to negotiate the end-of-contract terms of your marriage. A marriage is a contract, whether women like it or not, and it needs to be treated as one of the most important contracts you’ll ever enter into.

    2. Learn how to identify which women will age well. Start looking at women in their 40s and 50s and imagine what they might have looked like when they were younger. If you can, look at real pictures from their younger days. Don’t just look at hot older women, look at older women who have aged badly too. You’ll be amazed how many of them were 8’s, 9’s, and 10’s in their youth. Then start looking at young women differently… don’t just look at them today, imagine what they will turn into.

    • #19 by deti on November 5, 2012 - 1:35 PM

      siquaeris:

      Concur. I’ve been on FB and occasionally see current photos of old GFs, now in their early to mid 40s. I knew all of them more than 20 years ago. Seeing their current photos has caused me many times to give thanks that I didn’t marry them. Of all my old GFs, only one or two have aged well at all.

      • #20 by Altimanix on November 5, 2012 - 2:09 PM

        I’ve also seen photos that must be far from recent. She’d be 45ish but looks ten years younger, pictured with a kid and no mention of a hubbie…So, no access to a camera in the last ten years? hmmmm

      • #21 by Clockwatcher on November 5, 2012 - 5:15 PM

        Have you people who put so much emphasis on physical beauty considered the possibility that a pretty wife could become severely disabled and/or disfigured from an illness or accident for example? Some forms of disability can make her unable to have sex anymore as well. Where do these possibilities fit into the equation?

        Or what if the pretty wife gave birth to a severely disfigured daughter who grew to adulthood? Would you tell this daughter she had no chcance of ever marrying a quality man because she has zero SMV even if she longed for love and marriage like any other young woman?

        I am not trolling here. These are serious life questions the Manosphere has raised in my mind. I have yet seen nothing that sheds any useful light on these issues, even from Manosphere members who claim not to agree with PUA. I would expect any man worth his salt to be able to answer these questions in a meaningful and moral way.

      • #22 by James on November 5, 2012 - 7:02 PM

        @Clockwatcher

        The worries that a spouse may turn ugly or become physically incapable of sex are the juvenile concerns of someone who has never had a relationship that was more than physical. From your earlier posts I do not think this applies to you, so my guess is that you are trying to smoke out the boys and posers on this site.

        A concern with the physical beauty of the opposite sex is one that you will also find among women, when they are talking honestly to each other.

        The issue of sexual relationships for disabled offspring is a difficult one. A good parent would not be as brutally frank as you suggest, but perhaps would gently discuss what is meant by a “quality” man. Something that cannot be skirted around is that a disabled person not only has sexual desires, but these are hardwired for the same things as an able-bodied person. I woman I knew who was confined to a wheelchair by cerebral palsy married a man who had the same affliction. Another woman I knew lost the use of her legs in a riding accident, but seriously expected that she would pair off with an able-bodied man who would have to be over six feet tall. I know which woman was happier.

        Of course, it’s not only girls who have problems with disability. A boy with a disorder such as Asperger’s syndrome will find it hard to have any love life at all, particularly if he is average in other respects. Because he has no visible disability, but comes across as antisocial, he will not get much sympathy. He might reach middle age before he even receives a proper medical diagnosis.

        If you have not done so already, read “Metamorphosis”. And weep.

        You are right that you are not trolling. I wouldn’t be trolling if I went to a women’s web site, and asked who would love my difficult, autistic (hypothetical) son. However, it would not be entirely truthful if I said it was a “serious life question”, because it’s a hypothetical, philosophical question and I would not be expecting a serious answer. I would be trying to expose the users of the site as shallow, narcissistic, and small-minded. If that is what you are trying to do here, don’t waste your energy. You will not find a complete philosophy of life here, or “manosphere” answers to the full range of difficult moral problems. What you will find is a few people who have discovered in the last decade that everything they thought they knew about gender politics and relations between the sexes was wrong; and that most of society is still indoctrinated with falsehoods.

        It is good to have a dialog with people who have other points of view, because without that, any internet community tends to become self-selecting and inward-looking. The manosphere is still young, and you have a chance to help sort out the good ideas from the bad ones.

      • #23 by Clockwatcher on November 6, 2012 - 3:13 AM

        Deti, a word of caution: pick up your Bible next time before you reach for your keyboard. See Proverbs 5:18-19, to start.

      • #24 by Mark on November 6, 2012 - 9:35 AM

        I’ve worked at the same place for 30 years so unlike many guys I’ve been able to watch a large group of women go from their twenties to fifties. There are several women there I was attracted to when they were younger but I’m glad now I never got involved with them because of the decline in their looks. I still have sexually fantasies about one I work with but they involve her as she was 30 years ago rather than she is now because her looks have declined so much. So the girl I have fantasies about doesn’t even exist anymore. The ones that aged the best were the more intelligent ones so I would encourage younger guys to go with average looking smart girls for a long term relationship. They just age better than the airhead hot girl who doesn’t understand that her genetic advantages won’t last if she doesn’t take care of her health.

      • #25 by deti on November 6, 2012 - 11:14 AM

        @ Clock:

        Re your post in which you admonished me to review Prov 5:18-19 before I comment again:

        The relevant passage was “rejoice in the wife of your youth”.

        Go to hell, Clock. I don’t need lecturing from you on appreciating a wife. I have put up with more than you know in my 16 year marriage and have still kept it together despite some body blows.

        I’d respectfully commend to your reading Matthew 7:5 before you comment again.

      • #26 by Clockwatcher on November 6, 2012 - 1:44 PM

        “Go to hell, Clock. I don’t need lecturing from you on appreciating a wife. I have put up with more than you know in my 16 year marriage and have still kept it together despite some body blows.”

        Deti,

        I can see why what I said set you off, but you misinterpreted my comment. It had nothing to do with how you treat your wife (which I know nothing about – I can’t remember you ever commenting about her in the Manosphere except to mention that you have one – and I have been lurking for a good while). I was referring, rather, to the way you are going on in this thread about female aging and physical appearance. It is not a Biblical vision of female beauty. In fact I would argue it is fundamentally anti-Christian.

        With respect to planks I have plenty, but on this particular issue – no.

      • #27 by deti on November 6, 2012 - 2:10 PM

        CLock:

        What you consider “going on” about female aging and physical appearance, I consider making brutally candid observations.

        We’re “going on” about female aging and physical appearance because a woman should look for a husband and lock him down when she is young, fresh and pretty, she can and will fall in love and bond to him, and she is giving her husband her best years. She should not wait until she is older and shopworn from alpha pump and dumps, her bonding ability is damaged, and all she has to offer a husband is leftovers.

        I take these truths to be self – evident. In matters of sexual attraction, in the eyes of men, a woman’s looks and physical appearance are paramount. Men are hardwired this way. Every woman hits The Wall at some point. Most women hit The Wall around age 30, give or take. There are outliers on either side of the spectrum. Some hit The Wall in their early 20s; others, not until the late 40s or early 50s.

        The women depicted in the Roosh forum are very attractive for 40+. But they are outliers, at least in the midwest where I live. They have to be in the top 10 to 20 % of women for their ages.

        The lesson here is that most women aren’t going to look that good when they get to 40. A woman partying and slutting it up until her early 30s and then start maybe looking for a husband is a pretty poor strategy.

      • #28 by Clockwatcher on November 6, 2012 - 2:28 PM

        “We’re “going on” about female aging and physical appearance because a woman should look for a husband and lock him down when she is young, fresh and pretty, she can and will fall in love and bond to him, and she is giving her husband her best years. She should not wait until she is older and shopworn from alpha pump and dumps, her bonding ability is damaged, and all she has to offer a husband is leftovers.

        I take these truths to be self – evident. In matters of sexual attraction, in the eyes of men, a woman’s looks and physical appearance are paramount. Men are hardwired this way. Every woman hits The Wall at some point. Most women hit The Wall around age 30, give or take. There are outliers on either side of the spectrum. Some hit The Wall in their early 20s; others, not until the late 40s or early 50s.

        Deti,

        Sorry but I cannot get the comments to nest properly to the above post.

        I would argue that Christian men, knowing that humans are a blend of body and soul, should not take such a purely material view of sexual love. In the Christian tradition, caritas trumps eros every time. I am not trying to diminish the importance of eros or of female beauty as it influences and directs male sexuality -in fact, as Ken Hill from Mars Hill Audio pointed out a while back in one of his brilliant lectures, Christianity has a far higher view of sex than the secular world ever has.

        What I am saying here is that Christians believe that we are given free will, and that all our desires (including the sexual) are filtered and tempered through our awareness of this gift. Misuse of free will is sin which separates us from our Creator. To check your Christianity at the door when talking about female sexuality is a form of Gnosticism.

        On this one:

        She should not wait until she is older and shopworn from alpha pump and dumps, her bonding ability is damaged, and all she has to offer a husband is leftovers.

        You are talking about a subset of women. What about women who follow God’s laws with regard to sexuality but do not find a husband young, or who are widowed young? As usual, there is too much emphasis here on women who have adopted the messed up values of the so-called sexual revolution, and too little on women with conservative, old-fashioned values. Men who are seeking old-fashioned women should put a lid on their obsession with “carousel riders”/SATC types and look for old-fashioned – dare I say “girls” – of any age.

        The twin obsession in the Manosphere with (a) female beauty and (b) carousel riders reminds me, I am sad to say, of the common (although not universal) obsession of so many women (or so I hear – and I take Manosphere experiences in this regard at face value, even though I do not see the same, at least in such abundance) with male height/alpha/income. :-(

        I don’t want to get into a flame war with you Deti, so perhaps we should call this a draw.

      • #29 by deti on November 6, 2012 - 3:11 PM

        Clock:

        “I would argue that Christian men, knowing that humans are a blend of body and soul, should not take such a purely material view of sexual love.”

        We’re not talking about love. We’re talking about attraction. Christian men are attracted to women based on looks. Christian women are attracted to men based on confidence, dominance, status, height, income.

        It’s important to Christians too. Attraction is what gets these men and women together in the first place so love has a chance to germinate and blossom. People need to understand what truly drives attraction so it can be harnessed and used to each other’s advantage; or at least to prevent unnecessary pain.

        “What about women who follow God’s laws with regard to sexuality but do not find a husband young, or who are widowed young? As usual, there is too much emphasis here on women who have adopted the messed up values of the so-called sexual revolution, and too little on women with conservative, old-fashioned values.”

        First, we need to consider deti’s First Law: There is no difference in attraction triggers between Christian women and their secular sisters. Christian women want confident, dominant men with status just like their secular sisters do. The reason deti’s First Law is important is that the laws of attraction don’t change simply because of the spiritual beliefs of the people living them out.

        Second, we spend time on those who adopted the messed up values of the SR because they dominate the sexual marketplace. The effects of unrestrained hypergamy are everywhere. For young people it is truly a situation of “combat dating” as PM calls it. Though this isnt’ a christian blog, I’ll observe here and have observed elsewhere, that the SR value of sexual license and the operation of completely unrestrained hypergamy is affecting the North American Church as well. I know many, many good young Christian men who want to marry a Christian woman, but those women are not interested in them.

        Third, most women with “conservative, old-fashioned values” hew closely to feminist ideals of relational equality, career grrrl power, and “anything you can do I can do better”. Many of these women are from the “empowerment” generation who see men as rivals, competitors and adversaries, and not as lovers, friends, partners and companions. This includes many women in the Church, most of whom are going into middle age, and who have daughters going into their 20s and the workforce.

      • #30 by deti on November 6, 2012 - 3:24 PM

        “Men who are seeking old-fashioned women should put a lid on their obsession with “carousel riders”/SATC types and look for old-fashioned – dare I say “girls” – of any age.”

        Men DO look for those women. They are exceedingly rare. Women are becoming more adept at faking it. The authentic “old-fashioned” women can name their prices for marriage, commitment or sex. The relationship/sexual world is their oyster. They can have literally anything they want. They are universally snapped up and married off by age 25.

        “The twin obsession in the Manosphere with (a) female beauty and (b) carousel riders reminds me, I am sad to say, of the common (although not universal) obsession of so many women (or so I hear – and I take Manosphere experiences in this regard at face value, even though I do not see the same, at least in such abundance) with male height/alpha/income.”

        Carousel riders dominate the sexual marketplace, perhaps not in number, but certainly in prominence. And most women who don’t ride the carousel, stand around and watch in curiosity, envy and/or wonder.

      • #31 by Clockwatcher on November 6, 2012 - 3:29 PM

        First, we need to consider deti’s First Law: There is no difference in attraction triggers between Christian women and their secular sisters. Christian women want confident, dominant men with status just like their secular sisters do. The reason deti’s First Law is important is that the laws of attraction don’t change simply because of the spiritual beliefs of the people living them out.

        Hi Deti,

        There are many very serious problems in the North American Church in addition to the one you cite.

        You and I are fundamentally at odds here. As I explained in my post, for the Christian, we are given the free will to temper our instincts in nearly all regards, including sexual ones.

        Moreover you are generalizing again. You say “Christian men” this, and “Christian women” that. I agree, your description applies to many Christian men and woman, but I am a Christian woman, and you absolutely do not speak for me, nor do you speak two of my close female friends (both married) who are also Christians. When making sweeping generalizations like this, you should be intellectually honest enough to use qualifiers.

        The quality a Christian female should seek in a man is one who follows God’s laws – in short, a spiritual man. A spiritual man, will, by definition by a kind and moral man. This type of man will be “dominant” by nature (some more outwardly so than others) in that he will lead, but the other stuff – looks/status/confidence etc – these are just gravy. In my own experience, “high-status” men tend not to be spiritual men (I am speaking generally – there are exceptions).

        Have you ever explored “Theology of the Body” by Karol Wojtyla (particularly “Love and Responsibility”) or the work of Dietrich and Alice Von Hildebrand?

        I know many, many good young Christian men who want to marry a Christian woman, but those women are not interested in them.

        I know many, many good Christian women who want to marry a Christian man of character, but they cannot find one. It’s a problem on both sides apparently. How can we manage to get these nice old-fashioned people together? LOL

      • #32 by theprivateman on November 6, 2012 - 3:47 PM

        Moreover you are generalizing again. You say “Christian men” this, and “Christian women” that. I agree, your description applies to many Christian men and woman.

        Certainly enough Christian man and women do these kinds of things for Deti to come to the conclusions he does. Generalizations are how we acquire knowledge. Telling people to not generalize (very politically correct) is like saying “stay ignorant and don’t know stuff”.

        How can we manage to get these nice old-fashioned people together?

        That’s for the Pastor to help with.

        Deti’s point is well-taken – initial attraction is not a relationship.

      • #33 by deti on November 6, 2012 - 3:49 PM

        @ CLock:

        “Moreover you are generalizing again.”

        I am extremely confident in the validity of deti’s First Law. I am extremely confident that when we are talking about attraction (not what Christian women SAY they want, not what Christian women OUGHT to want, but attraction), Christian women consistently demonstrate their attraction to the same basic triggers and traits as their secular sisters. There will always be outliers. The exceptions prove the rule.

      • #34 by deti on November 6, 2012 - 4:29 PM

        Clock:

        “The quality a Christian female should seek in a man is one who follows God’s laws – in short, a spiritual man. A spiritual man, will, by definition be a kind and moral man. This type of man will be “dominant” by nature (some more outwardly so than others) in that he will lead, but the other stuff – looks/status/confidence etc – these are just gravy.”

        We’ve been talking about two different things. Most of us are talking about how age affects female attractiveness. But you’re attempting to steer us away from that to talk about what people SHOULD want in a life partner. It’s fine you want to talk about that, I guess, but let’s recognize that we are talking about apples and oranges.

        Do you think that kindness and morality and spirituality are attractive traits? If so, you are in a decided minority, even among our Christian sisters. I can tell you from personal experience, observation and hearing from others in the manosphere and elsewhere that most young Christian women do not share your views, not at all. They are looking just as hard as their secular sisters for the hot alpha man with looks, status, confidence and money. The Christian women I know and used to know have expectations so insanely unreasonable that they will never find a man who meets their qualifications. They will settle for nothing less than a man with Brad Pitt’s face, Ryan Lochte’s body, Warren Buffett’s money, George Clooney’s charm and Billy Graham’s spirituality. Oh, and he has to be able to preach a sermon at a moment’s notice. Any man she knows who does not meet every single one of her qualifications is immediately tossed out.

      • #35 by deti on November 6, 2012 - 4:44 PM

        “I know many, many good Christian women who want to marry a Christian man of character, but they cannot find one. It’s a problem on both sides apparently. How can we manage to get these nice old-fashioned people together? LOL”

        The Church needs to stop
        a. hamstringing the men.
        b. telling the men that they are bad for expecting women to submit to them
        c. telling its men that they are bad, perverted men for wanting sex and having sexual desires
        d. telling the boys to sit down, shut up and be nice little gentlemen
        e. telling the single men to “man up and marry the sluts”
        f. encouraging girls to inflate their self-worths beyond all measure
        g. telling the girls that they are “daughters of the King” and “God’s special princesses”
        h. excusing their slutty dress, mannerisms and behavior
        i. refusing to call girls out on their crappy, disrespectful and disgusting behavior and speech
        j. refusing to acknowledge that women are sexual beings and have sexual desires at a level comparable to men
        k. looking the other way and winking and nodding at frivolous divorce
        l. blaming the husband every time a woman in the church divorces, wants a divorce or threatens divorce
        m. allowing divorced women to remarry in the church
        n. encouraging sluttiness by telling women that it’s OK and all will be forgiven if they just pray a little prayer
        o. letting all the women run everything.

      • #36 by Clockwatcher on November 6, 2012 - 6:38 PM

        Do you think that kindness and morality and spirituality are attractive traits? If so, you are in a decided minority, even among our Christian sisters.

        Yes, and I think that is pretty clear from my posts.

        I can tell you from personal experience, observation and hearing from others in the manosphere and elsewhere that most young Christian women do not share your views, not at all. They are looking just as hard as their secular sisters for the hot alpha man with looks, status, confidence and money.

        The Church is filled with people, both male and female, who say they love Jesus but whose lives say otherwise. The young women you cite are typical in that respect. I call these people “Christians in Name Only.” They have immersed themselves in secular values in a way not compatible with the Gospel. Jesus had very harsh words for people like this. And truth be told, many who do get married young are actually “Entitlement Princesses” who push their husbands to climb the corporate ladder because they want more, more, more. This is all part of the heretical Dominionist mindset which reigns supreme in American Evangelicalism…but I am not going to go there or I will write a novel (LOL).

        You have a very different approach to gender issues than I do. As I stated earlier today, I believe your approach is in many ways anti-Christian (not compatible with Christian orthodoxy). I think it’s important, however, for readers to see that Christians who are well-versed in “gender politics” (as James called it) – a description I believe applies to both of us – can disagree sharply and in some instances come to vastly different conclusions.

        In the Manosphere, people who challenge some of its primary assumptions are usually (NB: I didn’t say “always”) dismissed as ignorant, brainwashed, trollish, etc. This tends to result in selection bias, where people spend hours talking with others with whom they agree on nearly everything. It becomes very easy to confuse opinion with fact, and “Deti’s Law” with God’s law.

        I am not attempting to diss you here – in the main I appreciate your presence – but given that you are one of the prominent Christian commenters in the Manosphere it saddens me to see that you have wandered so far off the reservation in terms of many traditional Christian teachings about human sexuality.

        I long for the day when Christians with the intellectual mettle of a Dawn Eden or an Eve Tushnet enter the Manosphere debates. Then people will realize there are alternatives to “Deti’s Law.” :-)

      • #37 by Clockwatcher on November 6, 2012 - 6:56 PM

        Certainly enough Christian man and women do these kinds of things for Deti to come to the conclusions he does. Generalizations are how we acquire knowledge. Telling people to not generalize (very politically correct) is like saying “stay ignorant and don’t know stuff”.

        I was referring to the sweeping language he was using, not the fact that he was generalizing. When people in the Manosphere write things like “Women are irrational harpies” or “Women are not trustworthy” or, conversely, feminists say, “men are selfish” or “men are immature” – all these people are generalizing. They are careless with language, and it undermines the credibility of what they are trying to say.

        This type of generalization (which occurs on a regular basis – note, I did not say “all the time”) is in my view the primary reason why the Manosphere has not found natural allies who could help it to gain traction in mainstream culture. It is filled largely (note, I did not say “completely”) with a group of Special Snowflakes talking to other Special Snowflakes about how right they all are, how perceptive their diagnosis, and how wrong everyone else is – especially those who challenge them directly, whether male or female.

        “Negg away” folks!

      • #38 by deti on November 6, 2012 - 7:33 PM

        Clock:

        “You have a very different approach to gender issues than I do. As I stated earlier today, I believe your approach is in many ways anti-Christian (not compatible with Christian orthodoxy).”

        Actually, if you want to know my approach to gender issues, you should review Ephesians 5 and Paul’s Letter to Titus Given your background I am sure you’re familiar with them. Those scriptures are also completely compatible with the views expressed around the manosphere, except perhaps for the PUA wing of our fair corner.

      • #39 by James on November 6, 2012 - 8:07 PM

        @Clockwatcher

        I’m sorry, but it seems to me that Deti’s Law is the truth.

        Perhaps we can all agree with Miss Sayer in “The African Queen”, who said “Nature, Mr. Allnut, is what we are put in this world to rise above.” We don’t rise above nature by denying its existence, or by pretending that it is something other than it really is. Please, let’s start from where we are, and not from a place that exists only in romantic fiction or faux piety.

        It seems to me that it is a cheap shot to rhetorically compare Deti’s Law with God’s Law. We are as God made us. We are fallen. To point out the less attractive parts of our situation is not to set ourselves up against God: in fact it’s the very opposite.

        “Deti’s Law” is a description of an aspect of our fallen nature, and as such is not anti-Christian. God’s Law tells us, among other things, how we should control our sexuality. I haven’t seen Deti argue that we “should” do anything contrary to Christian principles.

      • #40 by Clockwatcher on November 7, 2012 - 2:19 AM

        “Actually, if you want to know my approach to gender issues, you should review Ephesians 5 and Paul’s Letter to Titus Given your background I am sure you’re familiar with them. Those scriptures are also completely compatible with the views expressed around the manosphere,”

        You are assuming that your personal interpretation of scripture is the correct one. This is a common pitfall of sola scriptura/private interpretation.

        Were you to die tonight and find yourself before Christ’s judgment throne, would you be proud to show Him the content of this entire thread? if the answer is “yes” then you and I are probably as much like chalk and cheese as I am with most liberal Christians, and this is probably a pointless discussion for both of us.

      • #41 by Clockwatcher on November 7, 2012 - 2:31 AM

        There is no difference in attraction triggers between Christian women and their secular sisters. Christian women want confident, dominant men with status just like their secular sisters do.

        It seems to me that it is a cheap shot to rhetorically compare Deti’s Law with God’s Law. We are as God made us. We are fallen.

        James,

        No one here is denying the existince of the effects of original sin. The difference between Deti and me can probably be summed up by saying that I believe that Grace works through nature, striving to transform and perfect it. As Flannery O’Connor once observed, “In the Protestant view, I think Grace and nature don’t have much to do with each other.” Deti’s attitude toward these issues is a perfect example of what O’Connor was talking about.

        My comment you call a “cheap shot” was meant to point out that Deti’s view does not represent the views of all Christians. This is partly why I referenced “Theology of the Body,” the greatest corpus (no pun intended) of Christian writing that exists on human sexuality. Much of the ground in the Manosphere has already been covered in it, but few people know about it or have bothered to read it.

      • #42 by James on November 7, 2012 - 5:46 AM

        Ah, the difficulties of communication by text.

        “It becomes very easy to confuse opinion with fact, and ‘Deti’s Law’ with God’s law.”

        I hope you can see why I interpreted this statement the way I did.

        “This is partly why I referenced ‘Theology of the Body,’ the greatest corpus (no pun intended) of Christian writing that exists on human sexuality.”

        I doubt that most Catholics in good standing have read the theological writings of Pope John Paul II, though they will have heard the gist in sermons at church, and may well also have read a summary. It is a tall order to expect Protestants and non-believers to have read them.

      • #43 by Clockwatcher on November 7, 2012 - 6:23 AM

        The authentic “old-fashioned” women can name their prices for marriage, commitment or sex. The relationship/sexual world is their oyster. They can have literally anything they want. They are universally snapped up and married off by age 25.

        Hi Deti,

        Please cite data to back up this assertion – and by data, I mean statistical data, not anecodtal data or “personal experience” – your own and or that of many others. I say this because I, too, have personal experience and anecdotal data (from myself and from many others) which points to a conclusion different from yours.

        There are three possibilities here

        1. You are right and I am wrong.
        2. I am right and you are wrong.
        3. Neither of us is right, and the truth is somewhere in between.

      • #44 by James on November 7, 2012 - 6:38 AM

        @Clockwatcher

        People, particularly women, experience sexual desire in different ways, and it may be that you personally find it hard to recognize the aspects of female sexuality that we are talking about. This post is about dating for the over-40s, and by that age the “dating pool” is skewed towards people who have difficulty forming relationships. If you mostly know people who have been happily married for 20 years, you will not have encountered many people with the traits that we are discussing here.

        It is hard to shake off the notion that the more “animal” desires are possessed only by males. It is true that men are attracted by appearance more than women are, and that women are more susceptible to the content of a man’s character. But if you are tempted to record this as a positive aspect of the feminine heart, first take a look at the aspects of character that most women find attractive in a man. Confidence and cockiness that do not merge into arrogance, humorous put-downs that do not blend into outright humiliation, superiority that does not become snootiness, an ability to handle himself among men without being overtly aggressive, high status, high earnings. These are the characteristics of an alpha male. When you have taken the Red Pill, you cannot help noticing that nearly every woman’s internet dating profile says “I want an alpha male”. That is hypergamy.

        Women’s dating profiles frequently say “I want a man to be over 6 feet so I can wear heels”. Statements like that do not generate newspaper headlines, but they are as outrageous as a man saying “I want you to have a C-cup or larger so my man-boobs don’t look big when I stand next to you”.

        I sometimes read women’s blogs, and the most eloquent expression of hypergamy that I have read was from a divorced woman of “about 45″, who described her feelings about the possibility of sex with a nice man who did not meet her requirements. She wrote (I’d give the link but then this post would get stuck in moderation; you can find it with Google, especially if you add the search term “plankton”):

        Or you get the occasional nice enough one who is really keen on you (once in a blue fucking moon) and you try your best to think yourself with him and you say to yourself, he’d be a kind enough fellow to go to the movies with and have pasta, interesting and mild. And you will yourself to think thoughts of sex with him because he is there and, as I say, kind and interesting and good enough, but the thought of getting naked with him would be like picking up a spider, or letting a snake slither round your neck or having a juddering pigeon flapping its windy wings right by your ear. And you don’t know why this is, and it feels so unfair because he’s so nice and because he’s so there, but you just can’t get yourself to relish the very concept of his bare skin and bits coming into contact with and indeed searching their way across and into yours … This is the reality. No men to speak of. No men. No men.

        No men.

        I love the writer’s honesty. She tells us how she feels, and not some romantically correct lie about the man’s lack of husbandly qualities or unwillingless to commit.

        In Manosphere terms, it is the quintessential description of female hypergamy, of what many women feel about the beta male. He is not a man, he is not even human, he is as revolting as a spider or snake. We are talking about 80% of men here, 40% of the human race. I will wager that, even if you sat Gender Differences 101 to 999, you were never told anything about the disgust that many women feel at the thought of sex with the majority of men, even the age-appropriate single ones with whom they are on pasta-eating terms.

        Face it. Deal with it. It is harder for women to accept the Red Pill than men, because not only have they been fed the same falsehoods as men, they have been taught that women’s character is innately superior to men’s. It is both difficult and painful to accept that this was always a lie.

      • #45 by Clockwatcher on November 7, 2012 - 6:56 AM

        James @ “People, particularly women, experience sexual desire in different ways…”

        Lots and lots of good and interesting stuff there – I am heading out the door but will get back to you later today or tomorrow – that is if Private Man doesn’t get fed up and put the kebosh on all this “churchy-talk” and kick us off the blog first (LOL).

      • #46 by theprivateman on November 7, 2012 - 8:14 AM

        It’s fascinating to me how my blog and “churchy-talk” overlaps so much.

      • #47 by deti on November 7, 2012 - 9:55 AM

        @ Clock:

        “Please cite data to back up this assertion – and by data, I mean statistical data, not anecodtal data or “personal experience” – your own and or that of many others. I say this because I, too, have personal experience and anecdotal data (from myself and from many others) which points to a conclusion different from yours.”

        Ah, I was wondering when you were going to trot out this trope. It’s becoming a common theme around these parts that unless a man has a double blind, random-controlled study to support every assertion he makes, his claims are ab initio invalid. Two can play that game. You’re asserting various things here as well — YOU cite studies to support YOUR claims.

        You’ve come here asserting that kindness, morality and spirituality are “attractive”. I say that’s bogus, and exists only in your mind and heart. Those are desirable beta traits, not alpha attractive traits. I have never heard of a single woman, Christian or otherwise, who agrees with you, Not one.

        Don’t get me wrong. I agree with you wholeheartedly that spirituality, kindness and morality are traits that women should select for. I agree that if women selected for them that they would be happier in the long run, even if they weren’t terribly attracted to the men displaying them. I don’t agree that a kind, moral and spiritual man will necessarily be dominant, at least not in this society. Political correctness and liberal thinking and theology have pretty well guaranteed that the Billy Grahams and Bishop Fulton Sheens of the world have been replaced by the likes of Joel Osteen, Rick Warren and Jim Wallis.

        I have to deal with facts on the ground, as they are, not as I want them to be. The facts on the ground are that attractive traits are confidence, dominance and displays of authority and power. The facts on the ground are that failure to bring attraction traits can result in living in a sexual desert for a man and NEVER finding anyone compatible. The facts on the ground are that if you don’t bring the attraction traits, you lose. The facts on the ground are that failure to bring the attraction traits can result in failure of a marriage, the loss of hundreds of thousands of dollars and decades of hard work, and the ruination of one’s children and their children. Ignoring these facts, ignoring our men, ignoring what makes them men, for the last 50 years by the Church and the rest of our country is one of the reasons we’re in the mess we’re in now. That includes the Roman Catholic Church, which has absolutely ZERO authority WHATSOEVER in my book to hold forth about how boys and young men should be treated, and you know damn well why.

        As for sola scriptura and interpretation of Eph. 5 and Titus, read the words. They say what they say. What about “wives, submit to your husbands” is unclear?

        I am sure you know many women who cannot find men, or who aren’t married. Why are there so many single women who aren’t married? Let’s just talk about the ones you know. Have you asked them why? Are you not just asking why, but observing them, how they dress, how they act, how they live? (It’s common manosphere wisdom that if you want to know a woman, don’t listen to what she says, look at how she acts and what she does.) How do they act?

        Do they accept dates from nice young Christian men or Catholic single men? I bet they don’t. I would venture a guess that nuclear rejections are SOP with them. Or if they do accept a date from a “nice” Christian man, it’s one date and she rejects him because there’s just something she doesn’t like about him. His hair, his teeth, his breath, or the way he chews his food.

        Do they actively work to find attractive things about the men around them? I bet they don’t. They are looking for reasons to reject all the men around them. I would be willing to bet my house they all have 463 bullet point checklists and are evaluating every man around them with gimlet eyes, just looking for a reason, ANY reason, to reject them all. These same women will all flock around the top 10% of men and willingly throw themselves at those men, willing to settle for a night or three of hot sex because five minutes of alpha is preferable to five years of beta.

        Are they working to make themselves physically attractive? I bet they don’t. I would bet many of them are overweight, dress terribly, have short hair, don’t own a skirt or a dress, wouldn’t wear heels if their lives depended on it, and haven’t changed the way they apply makeup since 1996.

        Are they working to make themselves feminine, pleasant and kind? I doubt it. I would venture a guess that many of them are entitled princesses, a result from being told all their lives how special they are. I bet most of them are career grrrrrls, talking about how “anything a man can do I can do better” and “I don’t need no maaaayun!” I would bet most of them laugh and snicker at the nice, good Christian or Catholic men who attend church with them and would rather die than get drinks with one of them.

        Are they working to keep themselves chaste? I don’t think so. I would bet that they date — and have sex with, or would be more than willing to have sex with — very good looking men outside the church. I would also bet that most of them will have premarital or extramarital sex, or already have (as long as the man was attractive enough). I would bet that for the women you know, if the man was attractive enough, good looking enough and pushed her attraction buttons, she would have sex with him, Christian beliefs and premarital sex proscriptions notwithstanding. (When I was in college 25 years ago, Catholic girls were among the most sexually active, and became so sooner.)

        Are they working on their marriages? Many aren’t. We have Catholic and Christian women divorcing good men, married to them for decades, just simply deciding they are “not haaaaappy” and jettisoning their husbands and ruining their children’s lives. Self-professing Christians divorce at a 38% rate, and we have Christian “leaders” like Glenn Stanton saying that this is somehow “good”. Christian leaders divorce: Charles Stanley. Paula White. Steve Arterburn is on his THIRD marriage (and this is a man who supposedly teaches men about relationships and Godly manhood). About 28% of Catholic marriages in the US end in divorce.

        Are they looking for husbands? I don’t think so. I would bet most of them are focused on getting an education or a career. Most of them are looking for reasons to reject men. Most of them are looking for “hot men”, not “good men”. Most of them are looking for good sex partners, not good providers (at least not until they get to around age 28 or so).

        Are they looking for compromise and willing to accept some faults? Not at all. I would bet most of the women you know are rejecting good men left and right because he’s 5-11, not 6-2. Or because his teeth are a little crooked. Or because he likes country music, Or because he drives a pickup and not a Ferrari. Or because he’s a plumber and not a lawyer. Or because he’s balding and doesn’t look like Channing Tatum. Or because he likes to read books and not watch movies. Or whatever.

        So these are the problems I see. What do you think, Clock? Am I wrong about any of this? Most of it isn’t studied because, frankly, it’s not politically correct to study this stuff. It is not politically correct to say this stuff. Roger Devlin is an academic who makes these observations in essays. But he has no academic appointment. Some around these parts deride him as a crank, a racist, a misogynist. It’s considered misogynist to say publicly the things I just wrote above. It’s considered woman-hating to point out truths about how women act.

        Clock, you will never, ever hear women acknowledge these things in public. You will never hear a pastor or priest call women out for these things from a pulpit. You will never see sociologists or scientists study it seriously. You will never hear politicians say them. Most men believe these things but are afraid to say them publicly, for fear of personal reprisal. Saying these things in public would be professional and social suicide. Careers are destroyed and lives are ruined for less. Pastors lose their positions for speaking out for less. People like Charles Murray are excoriated for “The Bell Curve”.

        What do you think, Clock? Do you have any principled disagreement with what I’ve written above? Do you have any evidence to dispute it? Do you see something different? If so, what? And what do you propose to remedy it?

      • #48 by James on November 7, 2012 - 12:23 PM

        I would add that not all unhappy single women take no care of their appearance. I’ve seen groups of three or four who go out for the evening dressed for roles in “Sex and the City”; after quickly clocking the men in the room, they sit in a row with eyes fixed on the door, waiting for a sufficiently attractive guy to walk in. Once in a while, they get lucky.

        Also, it is unlikely that Clockwatcher will know the full story of her friends’ sexual exploits. Women are much more discreet than men, because they know that other women gossip, and they fear slut shaming.

      • #49 by deti on November 7, 2012 - 12:45 PM

        @ James:

        “I would add that not all unhappy single women take no care of their appearance. I’ve seen groups of three or four who go out for the evening dressed for roles in “Sex and the City”; after quickly clocking the men in the room, they sit in a row with eyes fixed on the door, waiting for a sufficiently attractive guy to walk in. Once in a while, they get lucky.”

        And the next morning she picks up her clothes and heels, slinks to her car or calls a cab, and gets back to her apartment so she can shower off the stench of the semen and sweat from the man she just met and slept with last night. Or maybe he’s her BF of a couple of months, or a f**kbuddy. She then dresses in her prim and propers, grabs her Bible, and heads off to St. Mark’s to sing “Now Thank We All Our God” and listen to a 15 minute homily on how the eeeeeevil menz are ruining everything.

    • #50 by Clockwatcher on November 6, 2012 - 3:10 AM

      “The worries that a spouse may turn ugly or become physically incapable of sex are the juvenile concerns of someone who has never had a relationship that was more than physical.”

      James,

      Thanks for such a thoughtful reply. I agree with your statement above, however, from the nearly incessant emphasis on female appearance per se in so much of the Manosphere, one would question whether the notion you cite has any relevance to any of the men here (present company excluded). And if it does, should it not influence the approach to female physical beauty that is currently the norm in the Manosphere? In light of these issues there needs to be a rethink about how we approach the subject of physical beauty, at least for those who care about deeper things (presumably people with some kind of religious belief, or just deeper values in general). Even on this very thread, the treatment of feminine beauty as a pure commodity is rather….well….I will leave it at that.

      As one well-versed in Gender Differences 101, I understand how much men appreciate and value female beauty, however, such an attitude must be anchored in a deeper understanding of what makes us, both male and female, fully human or it remains merely a distortion of our human nature. I see little of this awareness in the Manosphere, even among men who should know better.

      ” You will not find a complete philosophy of life here, or “manosphere” answers to the full range of difficult moral problems. ”

      This is true, but I challenge the wisdom of this fact. The relationship between men and women, especially marriage, is one of the most important subjects in the world. There is not some invisible Chinese wall between love and other difficult moral problems, although most people in this day and age act as if this is the case. In fact I would argue, acting as if this is, or should be, the case is exactly how the culture (including the state of male-female relationships) has gotten to the miserable state that it is in (yes, I agree – nearly everything we have been taught by the larger culture is wrong).

      To be seen clearly these difficult moral questions must be considered and not avoided. For the Manosphere to gain any traction in influencing the culture for the better, it must evolve to include them.

      • #51 by Clockwatcher on November 6, 2012 - 6:39 AM

        P.S. Interestingly, James, my post to which you replied has received three “Sucks Ass” votes. This dataset (albeit small) suggests that the very serious issues I raise within it about illness and disability (both of a wife and daughter) and its implications about male-female relations as concerns the Manosphere are unwelcome and distasteful – at least to some of the readers here.

        Interesting isn’t it? :-)

      • #52 by NMH on November 6, 2012 - 6:58 AM

        I think the reason you got neg votes is the suspicion amongst posters that your intent is to make men feel guilt or shame, rather than bring up a hypothetical situation for debate.

        I think what may happen to many (if not most men, like my father) when the man marries early and lives with the same woman for over 30 years, despite the decline of her aesthetic looks, is that he still looks in her eyes and sees the beauty of her that she had when she was young.

        I think this could be the most important argument for marrying young. If this is largely the case, then you are at a serious disadvantage as an older man as the cohort of women that still have that youthful beauty than a man can “lock” into is rapidly dwindling.

      • #53 by Clockwatcher on November 6, 2012 - 1:57 PM

        “I think the reason you got neg votes is the suspicion amongst posters that your intent is to make men feel guilt or shame, rather than bring up a hypothetical situation for debate.”

        Any time a person brings up a controversial subject which touches on someone’s conscience there is a risk that guilt and shame will be aroused. There is no doubt that many females who read here and have an “aha” moment, where they realize they have treated some men badly, experience the emotions of guilt and shame. Would this justify them “negging” a comment because it evoked this kind of response? I would argue, “no,” and I think most here would agree with me.

        In sum – if what I am saying has the effect of instilling guilt and shame in some men, whether this was my covert objective or merely a foreseeable consequence, “negging” me may very well be a defense mechanism which indicates that conscience is being pricked. But who knows.

        Finally, as James picked up on, disability and illness which reduces SMV can effect both genders. My point was a general one in that I wanted people to think seriously about this issue and the very difficult ethical questions it presents.

        With respect to female beauty – I don’t think most women realize how much men value it, regardless of his age or hers. If they did, they would work much harder to cultivate it. I try to do my part in this respect to educate other women but it is difficult to do this tactfully and most simply do not get it. It is like speaking to a brick wall.

        Also, I find quite interesting that some of the females I know do absolutely nothing about their appearance (and in fact often look like hell) yet their husbands are so dependent on the wife’s approval they are scared to death to wipe their own nose without first seeking her permission and appear, at least on the surface, to worship the ground she walks on. I am talking about professional men in their 30s and 40s who ride motorcycles, run marathons, and play guitar in rock bands for a hobby, and not metrosexuals. What is up with that?

      • #54 by siquaeris on November 6, 2012 - 5:18 PM

        “For the Manosphere to gain any traction in influencing the culture for the better, it must evolve to include them.”

        Many men would like to change culture but, in general, the Manosphere is a reaction to and a way to cope in society as it exists today.

        In the absence of societal change for the better, men are trying to make the best of it, rather than to try and effect change because they know that this change won’t happen in their lifetimes. Even the MRM, which you would think is an activist movement, is mostly a bunch of guys who are trying to figure things out and angrily point out problems rather than actually making change happen. They just don’t have the power or support to change anything. Then again, when an opportunity to possibly influence some small amount of change arises, men will speak up about how that change should be… and then they go back to reacting to the current environment.

        As to your previous rhetorical question about what I would do if my wife were disfigured… I would still love her, and I would stay with her, support her, do whatever I could for her. You cannot understate the strength of bond that marriage makes over time. But as important or maybe more importantly, I value my commitments, I take them very seriously, and my word is my bond.

        Do you know that over 70% of marriages are ended by women? Did you know there such thing as the Walkaway Wife Syndrome, but the same term doesn’t exist for men because it is so much less common? It makes me wonder if women really commit to marriage the same way that men do. I don’t know the answer to that… and before you go all NAWALT on us, I am not talking about you, because I don’t know you, and I am not looking for a list of exceptions because they obviously exist. There are no hard and fast rules that apply to every man or every woman, but there are trends.

        So, one of the reactions that we see in men today is that they are deciding not to commit to marriage as much. Is this a good thing? I think not, but it is really the only sane reaction that men on the whole can have.

        And back to your rhetorical question – I’d strongly prefer my wife to take care of herself and still look good as we both age. That would be important to me, but once married, my commitment and my love would take priority.

      • #55 by deti on November 6, 2012 - 5:40 PM

        Clock:

        “Also, I find quite interesting that some of the females I know do absolutely nothing about their appearance (and in fact often look like hell) yet their husbands are so dependent on the wife’s approval they are scared to death to wipe their own nose without first seeking her permission and appear, at least on the surface, to worship the ground she walks on. I am talking about professional men in their 30s and 40s who ride motorcycles, run marathons, and play guitar in rock bands for a hobby, and not metrosexuals. What is up with that?”

        I don’t know you or the couples you are talking about. My suspicion is that there are a number of things going on. The SMP that has developed over the last 40 years is severely dysfunctional. I suspect the wives run the marriage and wear the pants. They have their husbands under their thumbs. Both the husband and wife know it. The husbands have been taught all their lives to give her what she wants, do what she wants, defer to her wants and needs, defer to her decisions, and generally just suck up to her. She knows all she has to do is either whine or complain or act like a bitch, and she can get what she wants or needs from him.

        She outwardly wants to run everything, but inwardly hates it — and hates him for letting her do it. She hates him for not standing up to her.

        He outwardly wants to be the dominant one in the marriage, but he doesn’t know how because no one ever taught him how to do it. In fact, his mom, dad, teachers, pastors and others in authority over him told him NOT to do it — told him that he needed to “be nice to her” and “give her what she wants.”

      • #56 by Clockwatcher on November 6, 2012 - 7:04 PM

        Siquaeris,

        Thanks for such an articulate reply. You sound like a great guy :-)

      • #57 by James on November 7, 2012 - 6:05 AM

        “For the Manosphere to gain any traction in influencing the culture for the better …”

        You are right that, in order to gain traction, the moral dimension must be addressed.

        It will take at least a decade, and probably longer, for this to happen. The ideas are still in their infancy, and will mature when bloggers grow tired of writing about the same old stuff: alpha/beta, hypergamy, rationalization hamsters and the cock carousel.

        The Manosphere will not become a new political wave, because it will never be able to present men as morally pure victims oppressed by others, as communists, feminists and anti-racists did for their respective masses.

        This pretended moral purity allows feminists to continue denying any share of responsibility for the problems of our society, even though it is now as much their creation as anyone else’s.

        Probably the best the Manosphere can do is to ensure that ideas outside the mainstream are here to be seen, rather than totally suppressed. Its influence will be subtle. If we are lucky we will win an occasional victory, for example in changing some of the divorce laws.

      • #58 by Clockwatcher on November 7, 2012 - 6:47 AM

        This pretended moral purity allows feminists to continue denying any share of responsibility for the problems of our society, even though it is now as much their creation as anyone else’s.

        All well-observerd, James.

        There is a good bit of divide and conquer going on. Christians like Deti are liked in the Manosphere because they say what PUA’s want to hear. They also give PUA’s an out when conversing with social conservatives: “Deti et al are Christian and THEY see what we see/respect us/think most Christians are f***ed up.”

        I long for the day, however, that Christians (and other social conservaties) in the Manosphere stop making common cause with PUA’s, who are deeply anti-Christian by definition and, along with radical feminists, the enemies of social/cultural conservatism.

        I am not implying that Deti, Dalrock, et al are disinformation agents. On the contrary, I believe they are sincere but have, for some reason, allowed themselves to be used by forces deeply and actively opposed to what they hold most dear, similar to the way that Mark Driscoll and the feminized Christian pastors recently cited (correctly) at Dalrock are allowing themselves to be used.

        The instruction in Matthew 28:16-20 could not be more clear – go tell ALL the world. This includes PUA’s.

      • #59 by James on November 7, 2012 - 8:44 AM

        If anyone is playing “divide and conquer”, I think it is you. There is no common cause between Christian commenters and PUAs, only a common interest in certain kinds of knowledge.

        I deplore the heartlessness of some PUAs, but I have to acknowledge that many women who have sex with PUAs are fully aware of the nature of the transaction, and choose these men – and I don’t mean as their second-best choice.

        The most successful PUA I know tells women up-front precisely what he is offering, and commitment is not on the list. He takes refusals with good grace, but many women do not decline his offer. I know a lot of the women that he speaks to, and not a single one has ever complained about him (though they complain like mad about other men who are “creepy”, or won’t take “no” for an answer).

        It will not change anyone’s heart if the Christians here tell the PUAs that they are leading an immoral life. It will not make the PUAs go away. Which hoops will you want the Christians to jump through then?

        At the risk of sounding melodramatic, this blog and others like it allow us to share forbidden knowledge – truths that would otherwise be suppressed by society, the mainstream media, and the churches. I am no expert on Christian doctrine, but I doubt that it requires us to suppress knowledge on the grounds that some people will use it for sinful ends.

      • #60 by deti on November 7, 2012 - 10:17 AM

        Clock:

        Perhaps you ought to go read Matthew 7:5. That beam’s getting pretty big.

        What are YOU doing to solve this problem? I have yet to hear you acknowledge that women are part of the problem here. I have yet to hear any acknowledgement from you that unrestrained hypergamy is a big part of the problem. All I’m hearing is “deti’s a bad Christian” and “deti’s a tool of the Devil” and “PUAs are immoral”. The first two are absolutely correct. I am a terrible Christian and I am as evil as the day is long – as are you. (This last part sounds more like you are saying “I wish one of those hot PUAs would become a Christian and date me”,)

      • #61 by deti on November 7, 2012 - 11:00 AM

        “They also give PUA’s an out when conversing with social conservatives: “Deti et al are Christian and THEY see what we see/respect us/think most Christians are f***ed up.”

        I long for the day, however, that Christians (and other social conservaties) in the Manosphere stop making common cause with PUA’s, who are deeply anti-Christian by definition and, along with radical feminists, the enemies of social/cultural conservatism.”

        Okay. this crap really has my hackles up.

        Clock, there wouldn’t be any PUAs if there weren’t a market for them. There wouldn’t be any PUAs if women didn’t want them (and oh man, do women want them).

        if you want to do something about PUAs, tell our Christian sisters to stop sleeping with them.

        If you want to do something about PUAs, stop giving them so much attention.

        If you want to improve this SMP so that nice Christian women can marry nice Christian men, then tell your Christian sisters to find attractive things about them.

        Tell your Christian sisters to approach those nice Christian men and ask THEM out on dates.

        Tell your Christian sisters to start dating them.

        Tell your Christian sisters to marry those men.

        Tell your Christian sisters not to divorce those men because they are unhaaaaappy.

        Tell your Christian sisters to have great sex with those nice Christian husbands. Tell your Christian sisters to learn how to give good BJs to their husbands.

        If you are serious about improving this SMP, then tell your Christian sisters to:
        1. Lose weight, get decent hairstyles and learn how to dress like women and wear attractive makeup.
        2. Stop acting like entitled princess bitches.
        3. Start acting like feminine women. THEY are the ones who need to “be nice”.
        4. Take to heart Eph. 5 and Titus.
        5. Learn how to be feminine, submissive, kind, pleasant, and enjoyable to be around.
        6. Find good things about the men around them.
        7. Stop looking for reasons to reject every man who approaches them.
        8. Stop complaining about every damn thing under the sun.
        9. Learn how to cook, clean, and care for a house.
        10. Stop having sex with PUAs and attractive men who will never, ever marry them. (I know damn well that nearly every woman who professes Christ isn’t a virgin. She gave it up to someone, and more often than not it’s an alpha PUA.)
        11. Start shaming sluts. Start calling out crappy, bitchy female behavior.
        12. Stop thinking about what you’re going to get from a relationship, and start thinking about what you are going to offer a man.
        13. Stop spreading misinformation that spirituality, kindness and observance of moral precepts are “attractive”. They are NOT. They are desirable traits that most Christian women want in a man. But women do not notice those traits in a man unless she first finds him ATTRACTIVE. Confident, dominant, powerful, authoritative — these are the hallmarks of male attraction. NOT kindness, not morality, and not spirituality.

      • #62 by theprivateman on November 7, 2012 - 11:09 AM

        Gonna tweet that comment…

      • #63 by theprivateman on November 7, 2012 - 11:22 AM

        So Clockwatcher, are you going to do any of those things in Deti’s incredibly accurate and honest list? He’s given you very specific instructions on how to address this whole PUA thing in the context of contemporary Christianity. You should talk to your pastor and arrange a woman’s ministry so you can give some good classes based on Deti’s list. You can be a missionary “in place” at your church. I’ll give you your own page on my blog (or help you get your own blog started) so you can document your efforts. Step up, sister.

      • #64 by deti on November 7, 2012 - 11:17 AM

        And I’ll tell you something else, Clock: I don’t believe for one minute that PUAs limit their dating and sexual conduct to bar sluts with partner counts in the dozens. I don’t believe for one minute that it’s just the promiscuous barflys and “women of ill repute” and “Jersey Shore” wannabe guidettes and trailer trash fugly single moms servicing PUAs. That’s horseshit, and I don’t believe it for one minute.

        Women of all stripes sleep with PUAs. Married women cheat on their husbands with PUAs. Single 30 somethings with master’s degrees sleep with PUAs. Young professionals such as lawyers, physicians and accountants sleep with PUAs. College students sleep with PUAs. Prim and proper elementary school teachers have ONSs with PUAs. Sunday school teachers and young single Christian women in a moment of extreme sexual desire will sleep with a PUA.

        Why? Because they can, and because they want to. Women in today’s world are economically independent, and have unlimited access to cheap, safe, and effective birth control. No woman gets with a PUA unless she WANTS to. And I believe that for a woman, when she feels that sexual desire, when a PUA is pushing all her attraction buttons, it’s overwhelming, and she just simply goes with it. Including Christian women. Including some married women.

        Understand it, Clock: PUAs exist because WOMEN WANT THEM.

      • #65 by Clockwatcher on November 7, 2012 - 2:15 PM

        Clock, there wouldn’t be any PUAs if there weren’t a market for them. There wouldn’t be any PUAs if women didn’t want them (and oh man, do women want them).

        In addition to putting words in my mouth left right and centre (typical in the Manosphere, which, for levels of pure emotional hysteria, is matched only by two groups (a) Feminists of the deeply misogynistic variety, and Evangelicals with heavily thumbed copies of “The Two Bablyons” who insist that Rome is the Whore of Babylon), you seem to lack an understanding of personal moral accountability. All people, regardless of gender, are responsible for and accountable for their own sins. Men and women are equally inclined to sin and will be held to account before their creator. This includes PUA’s and their female equivalent (I don’t find the term “s*uts” any more helpful or appealing for this dreadful situation than I do equally inflammatory terms such as “sick b*stard” or “pr*ck.” I don’t think these are the types of words Jesus Christ wants us to use to describe his lost sheep – apparently you do, however, since you use the female ones with regularity).

        I have been studying these issues probably as long and as deeply as you have, and I have much to say to you in response to your many points, but this is not, for me, the forum to do it in. If you genuinely want to continue this dialogue, you can mail me offline at clockw at hush.com.

      • #66 by deti on November 7, 2012 - 2:49 PM

        Clock:

        Nice attempt at changing the frame. You want to focus on the sinfulness of PUAs and you are suggesting that the manosphere in general, and I in particular, implicitly condone PUA behavior and extramarital sex. But whether PUAs are acting contrarily to Christian morality is beyond question — they are. That’s not the point.

        The points are what is attraction, what role does human nature play in attraction, and why nice Christian men and nice Christian women are not getting together, making families and having babies. THOSE are the salient points.

        Let me be clear: I WANT nice Christian men and nice Christian women to marry each other and have lots of sex and lots of babies. That makes everyone happy in the long run. I’ve set out specific things nice Christian women like you can do to see that that happens. I’ve told you what I and others around here have observed — that nice Christian women just do not like, and are not attracted to, and do not want to have sex with, nice Christian men. I’ve told you why I think that is. I’ve said here what Christian women can do about this. I have not put any words in your mouth. I have set out my opinions.

        But you demand that when I speak, I must NEVER EVER draw any conclusions or make any general observations about female behavior. You insist that there are no such things as general truths about female nature, or that if there are, they are somehow not useful or beneficial, and that whatever truths there are should be ignored.

        I’d be happy to take this offline. But I want to be clear before we leave this, that whether PUAs are or are not acting in accordance with Christian morality is NOT the point. You may very well have objections to premarital sex. That’s all very well and good, and Christian belief systems fully justify those objections, but it is NOT the point and is NOT the focus of this blog or PM’s post. The points are what male traits are GENERALLY attractive to women, what role human nature GENERALLY plays in intergender attraction, and how nice Christian men and nice Christian women can get together and make nice Christian marriages and have nice Christian babies. Another point is whether things can generally be known about female behavior. To the last point, I think the answer is yes. THOSE are the points.

      • #67 by theprivateman on November 7, 2012 - 2:52 PM

        Don’t take it offline. Thanks.

      • #68 by James on November 7, 2012 - 9:12 PM

        I tend to avoid the word “slut”, though I find it useful for example when describing certain pejorative talk as “slut shaming”. I am sorry, but we are never going to call it “lost sheep shaming”.

        I am sorry that you wish to retreat to private messaging, and I feel some embarrassment that my own comments are among those that have offended you.

        I have certainly learned something from your posts. Why don’t you start your own blog to discuss these issues from your own perspective?

        We have clearly had some problems communicating. I will post some links below that might give you an idea of where we are coming from. These will be held up in moderation for a while.

      • #69 by James on November 7, 2012 - 9:58 PM

        I live in Britain. The links below show pictures of a British town on a Friday and Saturday night.

        http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2040260/Binge-drinking-Shaming-images-turned-Britain-laughing-stock.html

        http://www.flickr.com/photos/maciejdakowicz/sets/1391696/

        The pictures were selected by the photographer from a set covering a period of seven years. With the caveat that these examples are the most interesting (if that is the word) taken over quite a long period, I can say without hesitation that scenes like this are repeated every weekend in every town centre in England and Wales (Scotland might be different; Ireland is certainly different). When I am in town on a Friday or Saturday night, I find the atmosphere to be at best convivial and lively, but at worst it has scenes of debauchery like the ones depicted here.

        If I were Police Commissioner I would want the comatose girls to spend a night in the cells for the long-established crime of being drunk and incapable in a public place – for their own safety and to teach them a lesson. The kindest thing one can say is that the Police are too busy watching out for fights. If I were feeling unkind, I would say they don’t give a damn.

        In fact we are so used to these kind of scenes that we think of them as normal. It took a Polish photographer to notice that there is something here worth recording.

        I expect it is a bit different in the USA because you don’t have the British binge-drinking culture, and the legal drinking age is higher. Here it is 18, though in practice 16- and 17-year-olds have no difficulty obtaining alcohol.

    • #70 by Clockwatcher on November 7, 2012 - 6:16 AM

      I doubt that most Catholics in good standing have read the theological writings of Pope John Paul II, though they will have heard the gist in sermons at church, and may well also have read a summary. It is a tall order to expect Protestants and non-believers to have read them.

      I agree – yet these same people, who have not bothered to do their basic homework, claim authority at places like blogs like this to speak universally about “Christian men” and “Christian women.”

      BTW we may not agree on some things but I thoroughly enjoy your literate, humble, restrained, and thoughtful posts. From what I can see, you always treat people here with respect. You are one of the few gems I have found in the Manosphere and I hope you stick around.

      • #71 by James on November 7, 2012 - 1:02 PM

        I do not believe it is part of my “basic homework” to read whatever fine words on human sexuality were written by a man with executive responsibility for some of the worst child sex abuse scandals in modern history, and personal responsibility for at least some deliberate attempts to limit their public investigation.

        If John Paul II acted as he did through failure to understand the nature of child sex abuse, this begs the question of which other aspects of human sexuality he did not understand.

      • #72 by deti on November 7, 2012 - 1:24 PM

        “yet these same people, who have not bothered to do their basic homework, claim authority at places like blogs like this to speak universally about “Christian men” and “Christian women.” ”

        I claim no authority of any kind. I’m just an opinionated middle aged man posting those opinions on the blogs of people who are kind enough to let me say my peace without banning me. I write about what I see, what I know, what I want, and what I hope for.

        I write about what I have found to be generally true of Christian men and Christian women. The fact that you, Clock, don’t fit that generalization or have not made those observations does not make the generalization or observation less useful, less honest, less true, or less credible.

        We use generalizations so that accepted rules and truths about nature and the human condition can be identified, understood and harnessed. Generalizations are used in every other discipline and scientific endeavor — economics, political science, sociology, mathematics, biology, chemistry, physics, engineering, even music, the list goes on and on. Yet women come here and insist that no generalizations can EVER be made about female behavior (despite the fact that these same women do not hesitate to generalize and make blanket, sweeping observations about men and male behavior.) You come here and argue with NO supporting documentation that observations about female behavior which have been shown and demonstrated here and elsewhere to cut across every conceivable demographic are somehow invalid because YOU or someone you know doesn’t fit within that observation or it doesn’t apply to you. Yet you come here and shriek “NACWALT” as though the acronym needs to precede every single observation or opinion I make.

        If we cannot agree on things that are generally true about women, then it is hopeless.

        If we cannot talk about things that are generally observed to be true about women without qualifying every statement with NACWALT, then this is a lost cause.

        If we cannot talk about generally known truths about women, then there is no point in inquiring further, because nothing can ever be truly known.

        If we cannot apply general rules to general situations bound to repeat themselves, then there are no general rules at all, and chaos and anarchy are the result, and no order can ever come from it.

        Clock, the claim you make that nothing can ever be generally known or accepted about female behavior is patently ridiculous. That you are either unable or unwilling to see this means no further dialogue will be fruitful, because we don’t even have a common frame of reference from which to proceed.

        God bless and good luck. You’ll need it.

      • #73 by Clockwatcher on November 7, 2012 - 1:51 PM

        I do not believe it is part of my “basic homework” to read whatever fine words on human sexuality were written by a man with executive responsibility for some of the worst child sex abuse scandals in modern history, and personal responsibility for at least some deliberate attempts to limit their public investigation.

        If John Paul II acted as he did through failure to understand the nature of child sex abuse, this begs the question of which other aspects of human sexuality he did not understand.

        I failed to add “gracious” to the list of compliments and good thing I did, or I would have to take it back. When people reach out with kindness, it should be accepted graciously even when you disagree harshly with their political or religious views.

        Moreover if you want to ignore 2000 years of Christian thought and history because of your fundamental misunderstanding of what the Catholic Church has taught about human sexuality don’t let me stop you. Most of American Protestantism lives in an ahistorical vacuum and its rapid breakdown (not limited to “Boyfriend Jesus,” the “Emerging Church,” “Prosperity Gospel,” and the “New Apostolic Reformation”) reflects this.

      • #74 by James on November 8, 2012 - 8:18 AM

        ‘There is no denying the fact that the worldwide system of covering up cases of sexual crimes committed by clerics was engineered by the Roman Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith under Cardinal Ratzinger (1981-2005). During the reign of Pope John Paul II, that congregation had already taken charge of all such cases under oath of strictest silence. Ratzinger himself, on May 18th, 2001, sent a solemn document to all the bishops dealing with severe crimes ( “epistula de delictis gravioribus” ), in which cases of abuse were sealed under the “secretum pontificium” , the violation of which could entail grave ecclesiastical penalties.’

        Hans Küng, April 2010

        http://www.indcatholicnews.com/news.php?viewStory=15996

  8. #75 by Stingray on November 5, 2012 - 1:44 PM

    Is the old maxim of checking out the mother to see how the daughter will age basically true?

    • #76 by Random Angeleno on November 5, 2012 - 1:52 PM

      Yes. But it’s not always the whole story. While genetics play a part, lifestyles have their own cues. Mom is a smoker or big drinker while daughter is not? Mom is an overweight couch potato while daughter works at her fitness? It could be the other way around too. Those are examples of something that will make a difference in the comparisons. But looking at her mom is useful as a baseline.

    • #77 by LostSailor on November 5, 2012 - 7:16 PM

      I agree with Random that this can be generally true, but it’s no guarantee. Both of my ex’s parents were quite slim; her mother considerably so and still is. But the ex ballooned and even though she’s lost a fair amount since we split, her body type is nothing like either of her parents. Same with her sister. So use this metric with caution.

  9. #78 by Höllenhund on November 5, 2012 - 2:24 PM

    “When a woman hits “the wall”, she is basically not worth a man’s attention.”

    Not really. The standard Manosphere claim seems to be that she’ll become unable to attract the attention of the men that she wants commitment (or just merely interest) from.

  10. #79 by Rhino Tingley on November 5, 2012 - 2:39 PM

    Women in their 40s can – rarely IMO – look good in a 20kb JPEG. But in real life, up close, and particularly the morning after… ugh. Time is pitilessly brutal with women, one of the great tragedies of life. It hits some sooner and/or harder than others, but at 50, no woman stands up to even moderately close inspection.

    “With age comes a certain mellowing. Men and women alike aren’t collared by libidinous intent as our younger peers.”

    Do you really have less “libidinous intent”, Private Man ? I wouldn’t say that, and I’m in my 40s… probably got too much, in fact. For women though… sadly true.

    • #80 by DC Phil on November 6, 2012 - 7:45 AM

      Depends on what you mean by “libidinous intent,” I guess. Does it mean that you get an erection every time you see an attractive women, young or older? Or, does it mean that there are other things in your life that occupy your mind and time other than getting laid?

      Truthfully, I ALWAYS notice attractive women and have done so since slightly before I hit puberty. But, there have been many other things going on in my life to the point where dating regularly wasn’t one of them. I think it was easier when I was younger because you didn’t find nearly the same types of flakey, flightly, careerist, and abrasive American women that you find today (made worse by being in certain urban areas, like DC). Now, with such challenges (not to mention fatter women), there are times when I’d rather do my own thing.

      But, that also comes with having achieved a certain notch count. Once I passed a certain number, then I was able to say “I have my card.” :)

  11. #81 by anaïs on November 5, 2012 - 2:43 PM

    Thank you for this post PM. It gives some hope to those of us over 40. 

    However, I do not agree with parts of it.
    As you know, I am 40. My N is 1. Yes, you heard right. I met my husband in my late teens and been with him until he left me two years ago. I can tell you that my N is subject to laughs and it has become a topic among my single 40-something friends. I don’t care. All of my female friends who are now divorced have initiated the separation. All. And they are all riding a crazy carrousel. They crave attention so much, it is unreal.

    I know that you don’t have to have much charisma to become one of their spinning plates. These are the women who had been in sexless relationships for over 10 or 15 years. Women who gave up their career, who stayed at home with babies and had food ready for their men when they came from the pub. At some point they snapped and said no more. Now they are frantically trying to recover that wasted time. And they look good! Botox is amazing.

    But deti has a point, for women like me who want an emotional fulfilling relationship where there is commitment (as well as sex), the odds of finding it are practically zero. Not because there are ‘no men’ but because men have a wider choice. I think they are right. I wouldn’t date me if I could date a younger girl with no parental responsibilities. 

    Deti, some people don’t want to objectify and use others for DIY. Some of us just want a hug, a kiss mixed with complicity. Some of us just want to open the front door for our man, offer him a cup of tea and ask ‘did you have a nice day at work?’ Sometimes it is as simple as that.

    • #82 by deti on November 5, 2012 - 2:58 PM

      anais:

      “Deti, some people don’t want to objectify and use others for DIY. Some of us just want a hug, a kiss mixed with complicity. Some of us just want to open the front door for our man, offer him a cup of tea and ask ‘did you have a nice day at work?’”

      I fully agree with this. Notice that in my comment I said “Many” women. I know that NADWALT. You are a rarity, and should occupy a vaunted position. I should think a good charismatic man would want you. Respectfully, I think your solipsism is showing.

      Again: I do not hate women. I don’t want to see women suffer. It’s unfortunate that many women bring this suffering upon themselves, either by divorcing good men or by never choosing a good man in the first place. I find it very, very hard to believe a physically attractive woman of any age would have any problem at all meeting men.

      • #83 by anaïs on November 5, 2012 - 3:14 PM

        Deti, my husband left. I am very aware of the existence of other minds. Painfully so.

        A physically attractive woman meets a lot of men. But in the same way 5% of 40+ women are attractive, 2% of 40+ men want to committ to a LTR with a 40+ woman. 

        In fact, and this is might be purely anecdotical, the ex husbands of my crazy friends found girlfriends very soon after the separation. These girlfriends’ ages range between 25 and 32. Of course.

      • #84 by Clockwatcher on November 5, 2012 - 5:07 PM

        “I find it very, very hard to believe a physically attractive woman of any age would have any problem at all meeting men.”

        No, they generally don’t, but the men many of them meet are not the kind of men a woman of substance would consider for a long-term relationship.

        Imagine going to a bar and being approached by ten different careerist females in their thirties with ticking biological clocks who have spent their youth riding the carousel (as it is called here) and who describe themselves as “vibrant, interesting, and independent” and who now seek a beta man with structural alpha (who preferably owns his own house with much of it paid off) who wants to support her to be a stay at home mommy. Then you go home and tell your roommate about it and he says, “See, you have no problem meeting women whatsoever.”

        This is how extremely attractive women who are seeking a man of substance feel when told they have high SMV and should have no problem “meeting men.”

        Also, there is an added problem for extremely attractive women in that often times they are not approached. Apparently a lot of men are too intimidated to do so.

      • #85 by Richard Cranium on November 5, 2012 - 6:31 PM

        “No, they generally don’t, but the men many of them meet are not the kind of men a woman of substance would consider for a long-term relationship.”

        There are two somewhat related explanations to this. Either the woman has overstated her market value and thinks she can get a higher value man than she capable of attracting and/or like a lot of women her “picker” is broken and she’s incapable of actually finding a decent mate. There’s plenty of guys that would be glad to be with her but they’re not rich/tall/attractive/badass enough so they get overlooked.

      • #86 by Clockwatcher on November 6, 2012 - 2:55 AM

        “There’s plenty of guys that would be glad to be with her but they’re not rich/tall/attractive/badass enough so they get overlooked.”

        Richard Cranium,

        If you read my earlier post about my widowed friend you will see that she is looking for a man of kindness and character (like her late husband), not rich/tall/attractive/badass (who was none of these things). She has not found “plenty of guys” who fit the bill since her husband’s death, although she has met a number of PUA’s. Her “picker” is not broken. If she met one, she would not “overlook” him.

        Yes, there are very good single men of quality out there but they are NOT that easy to find – even though one would get the feeling from reading the Manosphere that a woman could order one up like a pizza if she was only willing to consider a non-wealthy, less tall, average looking man.

      • #87 by Infantry on November 6, 2012 - 11:50 PM

        ‘Also, there is an added problem for extremely attractive women in that often times they are not approached. Apparently a lot of men are too intimidated to do so.’

        I find this highly unlikely if she displays open body language, smiles openly at the man she wants, and doesn’t hide in a cluster of women, a booth or other obstacle which would make an introduction awkward.

    • #88 by James on November 5, 2012 - 6:30 PM

      Anaïs, you should be proud that your N is 1. You have a distinct advantage over the women who laugh at it, and you will find this out when you re-enter the world of courtship.

      I don’t underestimate the difficulty of dating for a 40-year-old woman; but there are age-appropriate men out there who are looking for commitment. Unfortunately they are surrounded by large numbers of pick-up artists and deviants. The most important thing, and the most difficult, is not to give up looking.

      “… the ex husbands of my crazy friends found girlfriends very soon after the separation. These girlfriends’ ages range between 25 and 32.”

      But how long do these relationships last? You would have no problem finding a “boyfriend” aged 25 to 32, and then bragging about it to anyone who will listen, but the reality is that these relationships do not last.

      • #89 by anaïs on November 6, 2012 - 3:22 AM

        ‘Unfortunately they are surrounded by large numbers of pick-up artists and deviants’
        That is the scary bit.

        The manosphere has shown me a lot of things and once you see something you cannot ‘un-see’ it.

  12. #90 by Rotten on November 5, 2012 - 3:06 PM

    I disagree. The N matters.

    For every N, there is a breakup, and for every breakup there is drama. Women will be constantly aware of this drama and will fitness (sh*t) test you about this drama all of the freaking time, especially after the 2-6 month mark in a relationship when she is no longer on her best behavior.

    Some of this drama is really bad. Getting dumped by an alpha causes women to act unpredictably in the future. If one of her N was abusive, then all of her future men will be treated as abusers.

    Get yourself a low N woman, and minimize the amount of other-man’s drama affecting your life.

  13. #91 by PhatGuy on November 5, 2012 - 4:36 PM

    I put off reading a blog entry for too long, this was good. Very informative. I think I shall be seeking more of this advice. BTW, I briefly dated a grandmother at 28. I’d say “don’t judge me”, but no, I enjoyed her company and it’s nothing I’d be ashamed of.

  14. #92 by NMH on November 5, 2012 - 5:17 PM

    I thought that as I grew older (im almost 50) my physical attraction to older women would increase.

    That hasn’t happened.

    I thought as I grew older that my physical attraction to younger women would decrease.

    That hasn’t happened.

    Add to that the obesity epidemic and you have a perfect storm of sexual frustration, which fortunately is diminished by my lessened sex drive.

    Off I go now to an aerobics class taught by a 20 yr old coed with a perfect W;H ratio….

    • #93 by Clockwatcher on November 5, 2012 - 5:25 PM

      Men are biologically wired to be attracted to pretty young females in their early to mid 20s. This includes men in their 60s and 70s. Intelligent women who understand Gender Differences 101 are quite aware of this fact.

      What separates the men from the boys (and the wheat from the chaff) is what the man does, or doesn’t do, in response to that attraction.

      • #94 by NMH on November 5, 2012 - 6:53 PM

        Ok: lets say you are a married man and the situation I described applies to you. Specifically, you married young to a woman you were physically attracted to and liked a great deal. 30 years pass, and she just doesnt look as good as she used to, but at the same time you like/respect her. Also at the same time, you are very sexually attracted to younger women in their 20’s and 30;s.

        What do the “boys” do? What do the “men” do?

      • #95 by Vicomte on November 5, 2012 - 8:23 PM

        Pick me! Pick me!

        It’s a trick question.

        They BOTH jerk off.

      • #96 by James on November 6, 2012 - 12:45 PM

        Not everyone ages the same way. Some older men are attracted to women of their own age; others are not.

        Older women face a similar problem. I know one woman who 10 years ago used to cheerfully say that she was attracted only to “alpha males” (her words). Now, at 55, she has been single for a number of years, and is still in mourning for her last relationship, with an attractive rogue who two-timed her. The ordinary men of her age who are available for dating just don’t float her boat.

        There are people of both sexes whose sexuality is capable of compromise, and those whose sexuality is inflexible. To the latter group, the former appear to be chumps; to the former group, the latter appear to be pitiable creatures who have never grown up.

        Neither group is going to go away. It is easy to ridicule and shame the people in the opposite group from oneself, particularly if they are also of the opposite sex. This is really no more than grandstanding.

    • #97 by Hamster Tamer on November 8, 2012 - 5:19 AM

      [i]Off I go now to an aerobics class taught by a 20 yr old coed with a perfect W;H ratio….[/i]

      Cheer up–you might well be able to use “Daddy Issues Game” on her… and/or she might need “help” with her rent or tuition. ;^)

  15. #98 by Dillon on November 5, 2012 - 8:51 PM

    Clockwatcher
    What separates the men from the boys (and the wheat from the chaff) is what the man does, or doesn’t do, in response to that attraction.

    The old trick of defining “men” and “boys” in terms of what most benefits the woman.

    How about “the boy” continues watering the dead plant of attraction because he has been programmed to and “the man” understands the importance of living an authentic life and chases his dream.

    • #99 by Infantry on November 6, 2012 - 11:59 PM

      Exactly. A Real Man does whatever women want. In this case, a real man acts deliberately against his own interests in order to make women Haaaappppeeee. Why is he obligated to do so?

      You can see the same thing with Blue Pill society’s definition of maturity. Maturity is following the female agenda. Not surprisingly, this is why girls ‘mature’ faster than boys.

  16. #100 by Good Luck Chuck on November 5, 2012 - 9:32 PM

    I am in my early 40’s and I just can’t find it in me to lust over a woman my age. I can manage a semi-chub to do the deed but women of that age lack the feminine essence to inspire my masculinity. The look, feel and scent of a young, feminine woman is intoxicating. Even if an older woman has managed to maintain her looks there is simply no way for her to replicate the feminine essence of a woman who is in her peak sexual years.

    I have only been with one chick over the age of 33-34 and it was just as I suspected it would be- bleh. Hopefully my good genetics hold up a few more years cause I can’t fathom the idea of seriously dating a woman who is even close to 40. By that time a woman should have entrenched herself into the life of a man who is able to value her for a lot more than her appearance instead of having to compete with girls half her age. It isn’t how nature intended.

  17. #101 by wingman on November 5, 2012 - 9:57 PM

    It’s interesting that as you age, you find older women increasingly attractive. When I was 19 there was a 48 year old interested in me, that no matter how much I tried, I just couldn’t do it. She wasn’t unattractive, she was just 48. Now I’m thinking about all the missed opportunities in various situations over the years. {cue up Frank Sinatra; “regrets….I’ve had a few…”}

  18. #102 by Laguna Beach Fogey on November 5, 2012 - 10:19 PM

    You chaps are in the wrong place. Here in Orange County, CA the number of hot single females in their 40s and 50s is staggering. I have three (3) currently in my pipeline.

    The appeal of these older ‘cougars’ is so great that I’ve had younger guys confide to me that they actually prefer older women over young hotties. I’m not sure I totally believe them (their stated preference may simply be compensation for inablity to pull young hotties), but truly the older female talent here must be seen to be believed.

    The problem (one amongst many) with so many younger American females is that they are chubby. Baby fat tends to linger on American women long after they have passed the ‘baby’ stage. Easily one of the hottest women I’ve banged in the last several years was an older (late 40s-early 50s) divorcee (and drug addict, I discovered later) whose exceptionally slim, tight body would put those of most 25 year-old women to shame.

    In the last 3 months alone I’ve bagged four younger women (aged 20, 27, 32, 33) and three older women (42, 43, 45). I can appreciate feminine charm in most age groups. I plan to publish a comparative study of my two target demographic groups. But for the time being I can say with confidence that what older hotties are looking for amounts to a certain level of class, maturity, and sophistication that younger American men by and large are unable to give them. And in return, older hotties can return the same.

    • #103 by DC Phil on November 6, 2012 - 7:40 AM

      By the same token, just how high-maintenance are those older women, especially in the OC? Here in DC, they’re quite common because of the concentration of money and government/”marketing” jobs, and divorces cash-outs.

    • #104 by wingman on November 6, 2012 - 8:21 AM

      Laguna – 1) if what you say is true – congratulations, you are a man of accomplishment. 2) that California is so much better than the East is already well established and, 3) you make a good case for drug addiction.

  19. #105 by stormy on November 5, 2012 - 10:44 PM

    One time I went to a lesbian bar and this woman bought me a drink and I accidentally the whole thing.

    • #106 by A♠ on November 6, 2012 - 12:03 AM

      Stormy, I am disappoint.

      • #107 by stormy on November 7, 2012 - 1:40 AM

        You’ve never accidentally a drink before?

        You should get women to but you drinks more. Then you can all of them.

    • #108 by A♠ on November 7, 2012 - 2:01 AM

      Stormy, y u no think I have success with ladies?

      I have had over 9,000 women buy me drinks.

  20. #109 by just visiting on November 6, 2012 - 4:57 PM

    Interesting post.
    I’ve actually been thinking about exiting the sphere because of this. Reading over and over about how you are lower than pond scum is not a mentality that I want to take into dating.

    • #110 by NMH on November 6, 2012 - 5:08 PM

      I think in a relationship you have to let go some of the evo psych– its just to cynical and if you think about it too much the negativity could bleed into your relationship. Evo Psych cannot well explain commitment beyond attraction. I take periodic breaks from manosphere now and then.

    • #111 by theprivateman on November 6, 2012 - 5:10 PM

      The younger bloggers are the ones who tend to take that attitude. As I am part of the, ahem, senior division of the Manosphere, I don’t take that attitude towards women. Some of the blogs you read are clearly for younger men at a very different point in their lives and are writing for a very different demographic.

      • #112 by Vicomte on November 6, 2012 - 7:41 PM

        We of the younger generation, despite our most genuine wishes to the contrary, have generally found it most prudent to err on the side of cynicism.

        That hippie shit will get you killed out there.

      • #113 by just visiting on November 6, 2012 - 11:26 PM

        @ NMH
        Agreed. I try to be aware without becoming cynical.

        @ PM
        Thanks. I’ll keep it in mind.

    • #114 by fi on November 7, 2012 - 4:05 AM

      JV. There are a variety of men here but remember they aren’t representative of all the men you meet. Some of them are the male equivalents of the “all men are bastards” women and reading what they say here should help you to identify that type in real life. And if they act as a warning as to what you should be looking to avoid in a man, or warning your daughters about, they have served a useful purpose.

      • #115 by Clockwatcher on November 7, 2012 - 6:37 AM

        Well stated, fi.

      • #116 by just visiting on November 7, 2012 - 1:13 PM

        Indeed.

      • #117 by James on November 7, 2012 - 1:52 PM

        Good luck with warning your daughters.

        When a daughter’s life is ruined by a bad man, he is not likely to be one of the “male equivalents of the ‘all men are bastards’ women”.

        He will most likely be an attractive rogue with no moral or family values. You will give your daughter repeated and detailed warnings about the man’s character, and about the inevitable course her life will take if she continues to be involved with him. She will hear the same things from her friends and extended family. She will know that what you are saying is true. She will stand by her man anyway, because the decent men you compare him with don’t make her feel so good. Disaster will ensue, just as you told her it would.

        The person your daughter is most at danger from is herself.

      • #118 by fi on November 7, 2012 - 2:41 PM

        James – there are several types of man you wouldn’t want your daughters to get involved with. Attractive rogues are one type but there are others too.

      • #119 by James on November 7, 2012 - 9:19 PM

        You’re right. However, her own instincts will repel her from most of the other unwelcome types. The types that a parent really needs to worry about are the ones that a daughter’s instincts draw her towards.

  21. #120 by Candide on November 6, 2012 - 10:08 PM

    Those 40 somethings in the Roosh forum thread look okay in low res jpegs, and probably the same in low lighting at night, but they won’t survive a closer look in daylight.

    One of my favourite sayings (not sure from which dead wise man) is: “pick neither linen nor women by candle light”.

    Of course if the 40-sth woman is the mother of your children and you’ve been with her for 20+ years enjoying her best young & beautiful years, then she is forever beautiful in YOUR eyes. Not so much to others. Just like that Solomon’s classic blog post.

  22. #121 by Clockwatcher on November 7, 2012 - 2:22 PM

    It’s fascinating to me how my blog and “churchy-talk” overlaps so much

    LOL. At least you appear more amused than disgusted. Kudos to you for your laid-back nature.

  23. #122 by Clockwatcher on November 7, 2012 - 2:32 PM

    So Clockwatcher, are you going to do any of those things in Deti’s incredibly accurate and honest list? He’s given you very specific instructions on how to address this whole PUA thing in the context of contemporary Christianity. You should talk to your pastor and arrange a woman’s ministry so you can give some good classes based on Deti’s list. You can be a missionary “in place” at your church. I’ll give you your own page on my blog (or help you get your own blog started) so you can document your efforts. Step up, sister.

    I don’t have a pastor, privateman. You are starting with an erroneous premise – that I agree that everything Deti has written is the correct way forward. I actually agree with him on many things but on others, not so much.

    What I do or don’t do here, at your blog, is hardly the full sum of what I do in my own life, whether online or off, to put my convictions about this subject into action. For personal reasons, I cannot accept your offer, although I thank you for it.

    If you genuinely want a female Christian voice on these issues I would suggest you contact a lovely and brilliant Christian lady named Dawn Eden. She is a published author, and is working on a doctorate in Catholic theology in the area of sexual ethics. If you were to extend an invitation to Miss Eden, and she were to accept, I would certainly be happy to add my thoughts to hers on this subject which is of such deep concern to us all.

    • #123 by theprivateman on November 7, 2012 - 2:50 PM

      Oh, right, different Christian franchise. We don’t get a lot of Catholics ’round these parts. Pardon my assumptions.

      I’ll check her out. Of course, I’ll have to warn her about the nature of the Manosphere.

      • #124 by Clockwatcher on November 7, 2012 - 3:06 PM

        Dawn Eden is one tough lady and well-able for anything the Manosphere can throw at her, but a warning would certainly be in order nonetheless.

        I would be quite tickled if she were to hoist her flag and dig in. Your blog would become a daily read for me.

      • #125 by LostSailor on November 10, 2012 - 12:34 PM

        Dawn Eden would be eviscerated in the Manosphere. I encounter her blog years ago but stopped reading for all the self-righteousness.

  24. #126 by Clockwatcher on November 7, 2012 - 2:46 PM

    looking the other way and winking and nodding at frivolous divorce

    One very important theological point – since most people don’t seem to know very much about Catholicism: the Roman Catholic Church does not accept divorce. The rules are ironclad. Individual Catholics choose, through free will, to knowingly ignore the Church’s unambigious teachings in this regard, as they do with so many others (abortion, birth control, social justice, abuse of children) they are, in the eyes of the Church, commiting a mortal sins.

    The widespread acceptance of divorce, and the rationalizations given, is a huge doctrinal problem in most Protestant denominations, but it is not, and never has been, in the Catholic Church where the rules on this have always been, and will always be, clear.

    TTFN

    • #127 by Clockwatcher on November 7, 2012 - 3:03 PM

      One clarification – the Catholic Church does not recognize civil divorce. This means that if a man leaves his wife and obtains a civil divorce (or vice-versa), the couple is still married unless an anullment is obtained. There are problems with the annulment system because of corruption, but that is a separate topic.

      If a practising Catholic gets civilly divorced and then civilly remarried, he or she is considered an adulterer in the eyes of the Church, even if his or her friends and parishoners wink, nod, and look the other way (this happens a lot, sadly). He or she is NOT in a state of grace.

      Bai McFarlane’s story is a heartbreaking one. There are many Catholic men and women in her position (I have known some personally – it effects both genders).

  25. #128 by Clockwatcher on November 7, 2012 - 3:16 PM

    Nice attempt at changing the frame. You want to focus on the sinfulness of PUAs and you are suggesting that the manosphere in general, and I in particular, implicitly condone PUA behavior and extramarital sex. But whether PUAs are acting contrarily to Christian morality is beyond question — they are. That’s not the point.

    And you are helping them to do so, Deti. That is my central point.

    • #129 by theprivateman on November 7, 2012 - 3:35 PM

      Actually, I’m the one doing more of that than Deti. And while yes, I’m a laid back guy, I’m also extremely passionate about teaching men how attraction actually works, not how it’s “supposed” to work according to terribly misguided social expectations. And yes, most of those social expectations originate from our Judeo-Christian culture as expressed through various scripture.

      But consider the actual structure of how attraction and PUA (which I call “Charisma”) work.

      1. A charismatic man attracts a woman. They can both be faithful Christians wanting to lead a life according to agreed upon boundaries within the framework of their faith.

      2. This charismatic man can now decide on his own accord to pursue a relationship or not on his terms. He can also decide the element of sexuality he wishes to bring to the budding relationship.

      PUA, in its basic form, only addresses point one. It’s about knowing what initially attracts a woman’s attention and using that knowledge to help him fulfill his relationship goals. There’s no morality to it whatsoever, it’s an amoral set of social skills that a man can use just as he might use a wrench to tighten a bolt. Granted, that’s an extremely simplistic analogy, it does work. What he chooses to do with those skills is where the morality comes in.

      Of course, I have a personal philosophy that often comes out in my blog but that’s more about point 2. A man wishing to increase his Charisma but maintain his moral keel will likely ignore those blog posts and find the posts where I – and many others – provide knowledge about increasing his attractiveness to women, his Charisma.

      • #130 by Clockwatcher on November 7, 2012 - 3:56 PM

        Oh yes, PMAN – In this particular regard, Deti is but a dim little ember in comparison to your good self :-)

      • #131 by theprivateman on November 7, 2012 - 4:12 PM

        Careful, Deti has reputation for writing excellent comments. They are so good that another blogger has created a blog just to repost those comments (http://detination.wordpress.com/). And you’re using his nomenclature as your intellectual shield so you you don’t have to address many of his points. So, I will request that you take on the women (of faith or not) and their atrocious behavior regarding Charismatic cads. Perhaps you have a venue (blog, church group, newsletter) where you could address this in writing. If you’re just going to circle the feminine wagons intellectually, my astute readers will recognize it instantly. Remember that women are the gatekeepers to sexuality and the accompany morality that it brings. Teach woman to say “no” to Charismatic cads and “yes” to responsible and good men and guess what happens to the cads? They’ll mostly vanish to be replaced by responsible and good men.

      • #132 by Infantry on November 7, 2012 - 9:25 PM

        More than once I see clockwatcher has been handing out ‘good little boy, not like that bad little boy over there’ pats on the head to commentors that agree with her.

    • #133 by deti on November 7, 2012 - 3:44 PM

      Clock:

      I’m not helping PUAs do anything. Do you think a PUA looks to someone like me for “moral cover”? That presumes PUAs care about moral cover in the first place. They don’t.

      You want to shame PUAs, which doesn’t work to control the sexual marketplace and bring things back into right relationship. Shaming and controlling sluts does. Christians want to shame PUAs not because it will actually work to change things, but because it makes Christians feel better about their own Christian moral superiority, and because it makes them think (wrongly) that they are doing something about the problem. I would also note that while contemporary Christians are quick to point at immoral male sexual conduct, they are quick to turn a blind eye to, ignore and wink/nod at immoral FEMALE sexual conduct. What we need to do is focus on what works, and that is (all caps here for emphasis because I don’t know how to do bold or italics in HTML):

      1. GETTING WOMEN TO STOP SLEEPING WITH CADS, PLAYERS AND PUAs, and
      2. TEACHING WOMEN ABOUT ATTRACTION TRIGGERS SO WOMEN CAN RECOGNIZE THEM AND LEARN TO CONTROL THEM THEMSELVES.

      Clock, if you are concerned about sexuality taking place only in the context of marriage, why don’t you want to shame sluts? Why are you ignoring slutty behavior? Why are you not calling out sluts?

      PUAs will always be with us. (Casanova, anyone? Rhett Butler?) Shaming them doesn’t work because they don’t care about morality, Christian or otherwise. Plus, no matter what we do, PUAs will always find women willing to sleep with them. The best that can be hoped for is to reduce the number of women who will sleep with them.

      PUAs don’t care what you and I say about their conduct. The only morality they care about is what gets them laid and paid. While we debate their moral turpitude, they are out getting phone numbers and lining up dates for the next girls who will give it up to them this weekend.

      Focus on what works. Slut shaming worked for millenia. Shaming men into chastity does not work.

      And — What does any of this have to do with what women find attractive or whether general truths can be discovered about female behavior?

  26. #134 by Clockwatcher on November 7, 2012 - 3:54 PM

    Deti,

    I have to go for a while, but I will repeat an earlier statement which you may have missed since this has been a busy thread:

    I don’t find the term “s*uts” any more helpful or appealing for this dreadful situation than I do equally inflammatory terms such as “sick b*stard” or “pr*ck.” I don’t think these are the types of words Jesus Christ wants us to use to describe his lost sheep – apparently you do, however, since you use the female ones with regularity).

    This list was off the top of my head but is by no means inclusive. For one, I would add the term b*tches to it.

    This is a pretty axiomatic principle with me, and if you, as a Christian family man, are not able or willing to respect it, you and I will have some threshold communication problems which will no doubt preclude intelligent discussion about the many very legitimate and meaty points that you have raised here today.

    Later :-)

    • #135 by deti on November 7, 2012 - 4:01 PM

      Clock:

      No problem. I don’t mind toning myself down, though I think the terms are useful shorthand.

      You should be advised, though, that the manosphere is a bit of a locker room mentality. This is a place that was built by men, for men. You’re a visitor here, so when in Rome, kindly do as the Romans do. Respect goes both ways — I respect you, but you respect me too.

      I hope we understand each other.

      • #136 by Clockwatcher on November 7, 2012 - 4:29 PM

        You should be advised, though, that the manosphere is a bit of a locker room mentality. This is a place that was built by men, for men. You’re a visitor here, so when in Rome, kindly do as the Romans do. Respect goes both ways — I respect you, but you respect me too.

        I am not a cultural relativist, Deti. If I went on a vacation to the Middle East I would not have to internally respect the fact that under Sharia law adulterers and gay people can be stoned and polygamy is okay. Same goes for the language here, which I find destructive to both men and women. The fact that it is “the norm” does not make it right or okay or any less destructive.

        If you cannot respect this difference, then we are fundamentally at odds to such a degree that this dialogue here, at this blog, truly is a waste of time and only for show.

        As I said to PMAN, he should try to get Dawn Eden over here. She is a public intellectual in the Catholic world, a sophisticated New Yorker, and would be a much better and more edifying combatant than me.

        Okay I really am logging out now (gosh, I hate the internet sometimes).

      • #137 by theprivateman on November 7, 2012 - 6:55 PM

        Same goes for the language here, which I find destructive to both men and women. The fact that it is “the norm” does not make it right or okay or any less destructive.

        If you cannot respect this difference, then we are fundamentally at odds to such a degree that this dialogue here, at this blog, truly is a waste of time and only for show.

        I suspect that “language” is a cover for “I can neither shame nor criticize women regardless of their actions”. You’ll likely deny that. It just seems so frivolous to end a discussion over some simple anglo-saxon words.

        As it’s my blog, I make the rules and very, very rarely censor a comment. It is a place for men and should you want to engage the men (and women) here, you’ll have to get past the nomenclature.

      • #138 by Altimanix on November 7, 2012 - 5:02 PM

        There’s at least one good reason for keeping the language salty in the locker room;

        http://www.antifeministtech.info/2012/08/is-it-possible-to-defend-a-male-space-without-it-being-hostile-to-women/

        “There has been a feminist war on the existence of any and all male spaces based on the principle of if men are doing something, no matter what it is, without women, then they have to be stopped immediately.”

        Clarence:
        “The important thing is defending the idea of a “male culture”. There seems to be this meme that male cultures are guilty of the Original Sin of patriarchy, thus they must be changed. Theoretically, and sometimes on a rhetorical level, this can be or is asserted to be done to bring the perspectives of both sexes of the participants into play and create an environment that is not “hostile” to anyone”

        “Male needs? They are of no use to the feminists and White Knights and they care not about the happiness of the males in the male cultures they invade. They don’t come to share and maybe learn a little and to have mutual fun, they come to destroy armed with righteousness because they worship the sacred gynocentric. Male needs in terms of space and speech and thought and sex are considered evil (‘privileged’) and so time and again one of the big aspects of these campaigns is shame – whether it is deserved or not. Gentlemen, this isn’t equality and we must fight this.”

      • #139 by deti on November 7, 2012 - 5:11 PM

        “If I went on a vacation to the Middle East I would not have to internally respect the fact that under Sharia law adulterers and gay people can be stoned and polygamy is okay.Same goes for the language here, which I find destructive to both men and women. The fact that it is “the norm” does not make it right or okay or any less destructive.”

        No, you don’t have to internally respect it. But you will have to tolerate it.

        If you are going to comment here, you’ll have to develop a bit of a thick skin and tolerate the salty language. With due respect to you and your sensibilities, this place ain’t going to change or avoid the nomenclature to suit them. We’re here at PM’s pleasure. It’s his place, not yours and not mine. You don’t get to decide where the furniture sits.

      • #140 by theprivateman on November 7, 2012 - 6:58 PM

        I’m going to light up the Dalrock searchlight (it’s like the bat-light in the batman TV show) to alert to him to this comment discussion. I know he’s busy for a few days and isn’t blogging. But I think he needs to see this because this kind of discussion is right up his alley.

      • #141 by siquaeris on November 7, 2012 - 7:09 PM

        Clockwatcher reminded me of this blog entry that I found a while back:

        http://mattforney.com/2012/10/08/no-girls-allowed/

      • #142 by deti on November 7, 2012 - 7:29 PM

        Privateman:

        Jeez. I really blew this thread up, didn’t I?

        Sorry about that. This post was supposed to be about hot 40+ women. Guess it’s not any more.

      • #143 by Infantry on November 7, 2012 - 9:28 PM

        Same goes for the language here, which I find destructive to both men and women.

        Classic example of a female entering a male space and attempting to change the ‘rules’ to better suit her needs and sensibility.

      • #144 by Clockwatcher on November 8, 2012 - 3:39 AM

        I’m going to light up the Dalrock searchlight (it’s like the bat-light in the batman TV show) to alert to him to this comment discussion. I know he’s busy for a few days and isn’t blogging. But I think he needs to see this because this kind of discussion is right up his alley.

        PMAN,

        It is highly unlikely Dalrock will listen to what I have to say about this particular subject. Gender Differences 101: Men as a rule (note: I did not say “all men”) do not like to be corrected by women, and Christian men are no exception. It would take somebody like a Peter Kreeft (Catholic), Tim Staples (Catholic), Paul Washer (Protestant), or William Lane Craig (Protestant) – or an anonymous Christian man of similar moral sensibility, to come here and see what the Christian men of the Manosphere – with their swaggering “b*tch” and “sl*t” talk – have been getting up to, and to challenge them on it.

        Perhaps that day will come sooner or later. I long for such a day, but doubt I will live to see it.

  27. #145 by Vicomte on November 7, 2012 - 8:13 PM

    Fuckcunt shitprick Bitch Tits

    Deti, you waste far too much or your energy debating people (should I say women) that have no interest in what you have to say.

    Clock can’t even tolerate the excruciating form of the letters F U C K on her computer screen. Never mind the ugly (true) ideas.

    I have enclosed this message in an envelope of profanity so as not to be dragged into the debate. I understand it will not be read by those it was not intended for. If you wish to reply please follow protocol.

    Cuntlick Faggot Dick Ted Haggard

    • #146 by Clockwatcher on November 7, 2012 - 11:51 PM

      I don’t need to log into the Manosphere to hear this kind of language. I merely have to walk outside my door.

    • #147 by Clockwatcher on November 8, 2012 - 2:26 AM

      I just did a word search on your moniker, Vicomte, and found this annoying and patronizing post.

      Self-awareness does not appear to be your strong suit. Methinks someone needs to take a look in the mirror before they start pointing fingers.

      • #148 by Clockwatcher on November 8, 2012 - 2:29 AM

        PS – in case it wasn’t crystal clear, the annoying and patronizing post to which I was referring was written by Vicomte and begins as follows:

        Fuckcunt shitprick Bitch Tits

  28. #149 by Clockwatcher on November 7, 2012 - 11:57 PM

    Same goes for the language here, which I find destructive to both men and women.

    Classic example of a female entering a male space and attempting to change the ‘rules’ to better suit her needs and sensibility.

    Profanity has nothing to do with gender. Some females are just as vulgar in this respect as some men are, at least in the UK.

    • #150 by Clockwatcher on November 8, 2012 - 12:11 AM

      Same goes for the language here, which I find destructive to both men and women.

      One clarifiation – there are subtleties with respect to my point about vulgar language. “F*ck” is part of everyday discourse for most working class people, including many beloved friends and neighbors. “C*nt” and b*tch are terms often used affectionately between both men and women. This isn’t a problem for me. What is a problem for me, as a Christian, is when it is used as part of Chav culture as depicted in James’s DM links, nearly always accompanied by alcohol and/or drugs. Context is everything in this case, and one develops an ear for the differences over much experience.

    • #151 by Clockwatcher on November 8, 2012 - 12:14 AM

      And finally…I would like to say explicitly never ask or expect PMAN to censor anyone here. What I would expect is for Christians, particularly ones who are family men or who are looking for a good woman, to censor themselves at least in this respect.

      • #152 by Clockwatcher on November 8, 2012 - 12:24 AM

        That should read:

        And finally…I would like to say explicitly I would never ask or expect PMAN to censor anyone here. What I would expect is for Christians, particularly ones who are family men or who are looking for a good woman, to censor themselves at least in this respect.

  29. #153 by Clockwatcher on November 8, 2012 - 12:29 AM

    More than once I see clockwatcher has been handing out ‘good little boy, not like that bad little boy over there’ pats on the head to commentors that agree with her.

    Nice Alinsky tactic – accuse the other side of employing the tactic that your own side regularly uses.

    • #154 by Vicomte on November 8, 2012 - 2:07 AM

      No, Clock.

      This is exactly what you’re doing, and it’s incredibly patronizing.

      That, along with your ‘No True Christian’ posturing is becoming annoying.

      You’ve noted numerous times that our generalizations are inaccurate or do not apply to you, yet you have constantly proven that YOU are the stereotype.

      You might like to spend some time at a site called Hooking Up Smart.

      You will do well there.

      • #155 by Clockwatcher on November 8, 2012 - 2:20 AM

        Now, just wait for the rep points and verbal “pats on the back” from all your Manosphere cheerleader friends. Sorry – but “Hooking Up Smart” is not my cup of tea.

        You have not understood my point about generalizations, which I have already clarified. The problem is not with generalizations per se, it is with the sweeping language used, which is both divisive and incredibly patronizing. You are no different, and no better, from doctriaire feminists who say “men are selfish” or “men are bastards” or “men are programmed by patriarchy to hate and oppress women.” These notions of collective guilt and the emotional hysteria that is frequently triggered when someone comes here and questions it may be trendy these days and palatable to many, but is not not compatible with Christian Faith which by definition knows that each individual human person is loved by God, and will be judged and held accountable by God solely for his or her own actions. Any Christian who says so is deceiving himself or herself.

        Okay, guys and girls, “back pat” and “good boy” Viconte away to your heart’s delight. Looking forward to all the neggs. I will take them as a compliment that I have hit a nerve.

  30. #156 by Clockwatcher on November 8, 2012 - 12:58 AM

    PMAN – I have a comment stuck in moderation. On rereading, I would be most grateful if you would delete it and not publish it. Thank you for your consideration.

    • #157 by theprivateman on November 8, 2012 - 5:06 AM

      I approved everything and have no longer know which comment you are referring to.

  31. #158 by Vicomte on November 8, 2012 - 2:52 AM

    Jesus FuckChrist.

    A ‘generalization’ must use ‘sweeping language’.

    I understand certain semantics and quirks of diction make you uncomfortable, but that is completely immaterial and irrelevant.

    No one is discussing or promoting hate here. That is the difference between us and the feminists. As previously stated, what we discuss is AMORAL.

    Also, please realize that a good many of us ARE NOT FUCKING CHRISTIANS (some of us are not even Christian, ourselves). Many religious people here are intelligent enough to consider this and allow for it. Though, if you must continue to refer to religious doctrine, please cease from further calls for scientific documentation for our claims.

    Chocolate, meet peanut butter. You must not mix.

    No, not ever.

    I don’t care what Reese said!

    And finally, no one gives two fucks about the ratings on their comments. No one is back-patting or ‘negg’ing you.

    The only nerve you’ve hit is the one triggered by those people who refuse to listen to answers while continuing to ask questions.

    You have no reason to be here. Your mind will not change any more than ours will. It’s silly.

    • #159 by Clockwatcher on November 8, 2012 - 3:04 AM

      A ‘generalization’ must use ‘sweeping language’.

      No. There is an enormous between the following:

      “Christians disregard evolutionary science” and “Many Christians disregard evolutionary science.”

      If you cannot grasp the difference I can’t help you.

      You have no reason to be here.

      I will take that as a request that I leave. Why don’t you ask PMAN to kick me, and anyone else you personally feel has nothing to contribute, to kick me off?

      Finally, I am well-aware that only a tiny minority of Manosphere participants are Christians. This has been referenced in my previous posts – which you either did not read, or wilfilly chose to misunderstand and then misrepresent. I have a hard time believing you accidentally misunderstood them since you and articulate which indicates a more than adequate IQ.

      • #160 by Vicomte on November 8, 2012 - 3:30 AM

        Dearest PMAN:

        Near a fortnight has passed since we last spoke.

        The road grows longer with each passing day, and though my bones are weary and hardly suited to work my toiled muscles, my mind is yet set to fire by the ember of your memory. That last kiss, as if in a dream, haunts my nights and allows me no sleep. Your lips are a phantom, a fantastic creature of eldritch allure, and they yet cast shadows upon my heart, even in these darkened times.

        Papa says we may yet make the pass before the month is through, and I find myself almost wishing the snows would fall. I fear I find myself comforted here, in this seclusion, and the thought of leaving my horse-sped prison fills me with dread, for I know that the worl awauts me on the other side, and in that world, is you.

        We have lost many brave souls these past days. Mama has recently taken ill, and there is talk of dysentery. Billy nearly drowned as we tried to ford the river. James was bitten by a snake.

        Should this letter reach you in the coming months, I trust you will hold it close to your heart, and even if you would speak of it to no one, I would hope that does not mean I have been forgotten.

        Eternally Yours,

        Forever, After, and Always,

        Your Autumn Flower,

        –Vicomte

        P.S. Please Kick a Bitch. I personally feel she has nothing to contribute.

        P.P.S. I gave you my maiden-veil, you bastard!

    • #161 by James on November 8, 2012 - 8:43 AM

      @Vicomte

      “You have no reason to be here”

      I don’t agree with Clockwatcher, but it is more productive to try to explain why we disagree than to suggest she go away.

      • #162 by Vicomte on November 8, 2012 - 3:18 PM

        I agree in principle, however, this thread has quickly devolved into an ‘exercise in futility’.

        It’s not difficult to see when a debate becomes merely two people reading only to poke holes in the other’s argument. This is not only unproductive, but anti-productive.

        Years ago, I would agree with you.

        Lately, I find myself tired of all the bullshit.

        If the proverbial voice of reason must also be the voice of a villain, so be it.

  32. #163 by Clockwatcher on November 8, 2012 - 3:08 AM

    Sorry – those last 2 paragraphs should read:

    I will take that as a request that I leave. Why don’t you ask PMAN to kick me– and while you are at it anyone else you personally feel has nothing to contribute– off the blog? Conversely, you can just ignore my posts.

    Finally, I am well-aware that only a tiny minority of Manosphere participants are Christians. This has been referenced in my previous posts – which you either did not read, or wilfilly chose to misunderstand and then misrepresent. I have a hard time believing you accidentally misunderstood them, since you are articulate which indicates a more than adequate IQ.

    • #164 by James on November 8, 2012 - 9:54 AM

      It surprises me how many Manosphere commenters are Christian. It isn’t that they have left the Church, it is that the Church has left them. For the avoidance of doubt, I mean the Protestant Churches and not the Catholic Church, which despite its problems has remained steadfast in its teaching.

      In fact I recall seeing a post in the Christian Manosphere seriously suggesting that Christians who are unhappy with the direction of the Protestant Churches should convert to Catholicism.

      This leads me to wonder whether your comments have helped or harmed your own cause. A different approach might have been much better received here.

      • #165 by Clockwatcher on November 8, 2012 - 1:48 PM

        It surprises me how many Manosphere commenters are Christian. It isn’t that they have left the Church, it is that the Church has left them. For the avoidance of doubt, I mean the Protestant Churches and not the Catholic Church, which despite its problems has remained steadfast in its teaching.

        James,

        I was thinking this morning that many of the theologiccal issues that present in the Manosphere are “Protestant issues” and not really Catholic ones – which no doubt accounts for the lack of strong Catholic presence and the very “Protestant feel” (at least to me) of the theological discussions that unfold (particularly at Dalrock).

        NB: There are a handful of commenters in the Manosphere who claim to be practising (as opposed to lapsed or apostate) Catholics. I won’t name names, but I have serious doubts about the authenticity of one (who I suspect is an Agent Provacateur of sorts), and another two – I have serious doubts as to their orthodoxy – and the final one I do believe attends mass, but from what I have read seems very uninformed about his own faith (sadly).

        There are five main reasons for this (meaning, why so many of the issues debated have an overwhelmingly “Protestant” as opposed to Catholic character), in my view. (a) The first is the RCC’s ecclesiology, which differs so sharply from Protestant ecclesiology. As you accurately describe it, the RCC is “steadfast in its teaching.” There is little room for doctrinal debate, as the rules on faith and morals come from the top down. (b) The second is the Communion of Saints, in particular, emphasis on devotion to the Holy Family. All Catholics, even those who are poorly catechized (and the number of these is, quite sadly, very large), are taught about the importance of the Holy Family – in particular Jesus’s Mother Mary, who is honored as the greatest saint who ever lived. God incarnated as a man, but His mother is honored and respected, loves us and intercedes with her son on our behalf, and is Queen of the Angels. Also, Jesus’s stepfather St. Joseph, the great servant-leader who held God Himself in his arms as a little baby, is revered without compare as a role model for men. With these two people as models, how can a Catholic child be confused about the meaning of “family”? (c) Another important point is that in the Catholic tradition there are many female saints and martyrs. Sacrificial love as an ideal is an example set by BOTH men and women. Also, there are four (?) female “Doctors of the Church.” (d) Thirdly, it is ironclad teaching of the Magisterium that the dignity of all human persons, both male and female, must lie at the root of ALL moral teachings and questions (not all moral questions are settled by the Magisterium – this is where a “well-formed conscience” comes in). (e) Finally, gender roles in the Catholic Church are very clear cut. Females cannot, and will never be able to be, priests – end of story. This has nothing to do with female “inferiority” – rather, it has to do with how Jesus Christ set up His church. Men and women are equal in dignity but complimentary – NOT the same. There is no confusion about gender roles in the Catholic Church, regardless of what some wacko nuns in their 60s and 70s, who want to hijack Vatican Two for their own agenda, say on secular talk shows. “Gender issues” just do not present with the same confusion or vagueness as they do so often in Protestantism.
        This leads me to wonder whether your comments have helped or harmed your own cause. A different approach might have been much better received here.

        I am sure you are correct, but all I can do is do my best. If you step back and look objectively at what the Little Merry Sunshines of the Manosphere said to me on this thread, I think you will agree I did at least okay. There are no guidelines about how to respond to some of the things that were said to me here. All I have to go on is common sense. I am not a professional apologist, psychologist, theologian or politician – I am just an ordinary person. Moreover I was on my own, in contrast to the Manosphere people who all had each other’s backs through the entire thread. When one does one’s best under less than ideal circumstances, one must learn to let go and leave the outcome to God.

      • #166 by fi on November 8, 2012 - 2:10 PM

        Clock – I agree with you and support what you say. Apart from all that stuff about ‘god’ which I’m afraid I skip.

      • #167 by James on November 8, 2012 - 3:30 PM

        If you call us “Little Merry Sunshines”, can we call you “Cupcake”?

  33. #168 by Clockwatcher on November 8, 2012 - 6:10 AM

    I approved everything and have no longer know which comment you are referring to.

    PMAN,

    Sorry for not being more specific – this thread is more lengthy than I realized, and I bear much responsibility for that :-/.

    It is the comment that begins with the following quote:

    I live in Britain. The links below show pictures of a British town on a Friday and Saturday night.

    II am quoting James, so it has quotation marks around it.

    If you could zap it into oblivion I would be very grateful.

    • #169 by James on November 8, 2012 - 9:05 AM

      There’s nothing in your post to be embarrassed about, although Britain has changed since your late husband lived here. Not every change has been for the worse. Overt racism is much less common than it used to be, and I am always surprised when I visit a US blog about race and see how toxic the comments are – on both sides.

      The random attacks, child torture etc are very rare.

      It is a mistake to think that the people in the pictures are all lower-class welfare recipients. Most will be gainfully employed (hint: they can afford the clothes and the drinks). Sometimes a teacher or lawyer is filmed doing something stupid, and this can escalate into national news.

      The Welfare State does not subsidize any of this, directly or indirectly, although it does provide incentives for single motherhood.

      The pictures say to me that young women are not delicate flowers in a nasty world of evil men and PUAs. Their worst enemy is themselves.

      • #170 by Clockwatcher on November 8, 2012 - 2:04 PM

        There’s nothing in your post to be embarrassed about, although Britain has changed since your late husband lived here. Not every change has been for the worse. Overt racism is much less common than it used to be, and I am always surprised when I visit a US blog about race and see how toxic the comments are – on both sides.

        That’s a very legitimate point and I agree with you. Race relations in the UK are far from ideal but they are nowhere hear as terrible as in the U.S.

        The random attacks, child torture etc are very rare.

        Statistically speaking they are, but it does seem almost every week in the DM there is something about this. A few weeks ago it was a large child pornography ring with men from all over the world.

        It is a mistake to think that the people in the pictures are all lower-class welfare recipients. Most will be gainfully employed (hint: they can afford the clothes and the drinks). Sometimes a teacher or lawyer is filmed doing something stupid, and this can escalate into national news.

        Fair enough. My comment was clumsy in its use of stereotypes, and that was part of why I regretted writing it.

        The Welfare State does not subsidize any of this, directly or indirectly, although it does provide incentives for single motherhood.

        “It does provide incentives for single motherhood” — yes, and I think this socially engineered destruction of the family is at the root of many of the UK’s social problems.

        The pictures say to me that young women are not delicate flowers in a nasty world of evil men and PUAs. Their worst enemy is themselves.

        Absolutely – these young women have free will, same as anyone else. If you read the DM comments section regularly, as I do, you will find that “middle Britain” knows this. If anyone were to try to blame this on men they would, I could almost guarantee, get seriously “red arrowed.”

        One does wonder, however, where is their mother? Where is their father? Were they taught ANYTHING about personal responsibility/right from wrong whilst growing up?? And if not, what does that say about the parents who raised them?

      • #171 by fi on November 8, 2012 - 2:27 PM

        I think since the Daily Mail became one of those papers that are provided for free on line (unlike the Times say) the quality of the writing has become very poor. There are a lot of American references eg Kardashians and that Grammer woman as I think the readership is becoming more and more American. British people often don’t know who these people are, and if you read the comments as you say, you’ll note a lot of them are asking who these people are and requests to stop printing stuff about them. The articles are very sensationalised and are aimed at increasing readership, and often not writtten by named reporters. Don’t get me wrong, I like reading the DM as I’m drinking my morning coffee, but representative of Britain it isn’t. Neither in its articles or readership.

      • #172 by James on November 8, 2012 - 2:59 PM

        @Clockwatcher

        “’It does provide incentives for single motherhood’ — yes, and I think this socially engineered destruction of the family is at the root of many of the UK’s social problems.”

        It would not surprise me if it was partly deliberate social engineering, but I believe that mostly it was implemented by well-meaning people who wanted to improve upon how we did things until the mid-sixties. In those days, if the father would not agree to marry a single mother, her family would send her to another town on some pretext, before her bump became visible; and she would not return until the baby had been born and given up for adoption. I have met both mothers and children who were scarred for life by these arrangements. It was a brutal system, and it affected perhaps 1% of the population.

        The present arrangements, in which we very expensively cultivate single mothers and fatherless children, are much less brutal, but affect maybe 10% of the population. I am not convinced that the total amount of brutality has been reduced, merely spread around.

        @fi

        Yes, Mail Online’s strategy is clearly to become widely read in the USA. It wouldn’t surprise me if they eventually launch a print title there.

        For US readers: the Mail’s opinions tend to be more populist than the Conservative Party, and it does not represent the whole of “Middle Britain”, not by a long way.

  34. #173 by Rollo Tomassi on November 8, 2012 - 9:12 AM

    The ‘Rate These 40 Somethings’ forum thread is more than a bit disingenuous since guys are going to be specifically looking the best looking, statistical outliers.

    Advocatus Diaboli post a much better evaluation of this a while back on his site:

    http://dissention.wordpress.com/2010/07/30/what-milfs-really-look-like-july-30-2010/#

    NSFW

    These women are far more realistic representations of what the average guy is likely to expect.

  35. #174 by deti on November 8, 2012 - 9:55 AM

    Clock:

    Your main problems seem to be:

    1. Generalizations that use “sweeping language” are inaccurate and not helpful to the discussion.
    2. Old English colloqualisms and vulgarities are not helpful and are offensive.

    A few thoughts:

    1. You have come here and demanded that everyone kowtow to your sensibilities. At the same time you refuse even to consider others’ sensibilities. You don’t seem to understand the entire purpose of this place, so let me make it clear. The things we were taught about male-female relationships, sex and love coming up as boys and young men were untrue. We have learned the facts and the truth about them. We come here to talk about them, to grapple with the concepts, to exchange our personal experiences, to “work out our own salvation with fear and trembling”, so to speak.

    I really must ask that if you wish to be here, you not interfere with that very important process. It is work that needs to be done. You can watch. You can comment on it. You can bring in other concepts. You can even try to help. But for Pete’s sake, do not try to change the process or stop it from occurring.

    Moreover, the manosphere, of which PM’s place is a part, is the only place we can go to talk of these things. The language we speak here makes sense nowhere else. I can come here and talk of certain concepts and everyone here knows exactly what I am saying. I really must ask you, nay, DEMAND, that you stand down. I really must demand that you account for our sensibilities even as you demand that we acknowledge yours.

    2. I liken your demand that everyone kowtow to you to an insistence that the entire place change to suit you. Imagine if I came to your home as your guest. You were happy to have me there. But I have decided I don’t like the way you keep your place. I then started rearranging the furniture. I don’t like the guest room, so I have moved my things into your master bedroom. And I don’t like the way you speak in your own home, so I must insist that you not say certain things. I don’t like your smoking in your own home so I am asking you to go outside to engage in your nasty little habit.

    So along you come and look at my handiwork, and you are within your rights to say: “Um, NO. HELL NO. The furniture’s fine where it was, and I like it that way, so put it back. The guest room is suitable for your purposes. I’ll speak the way I wish in my home, thank you much. And I’ll smoke where I wish, since it’s my house. You’re welcome to step outside while I do so. Finally, if my home is not to your liking, perhaps you’d be more comfortable staying elsewhere.”

    It’s not my place to kick you out of PM’s blog. I’m just making an observation of your conduct. I, for one, have gone out of my way to engage you directly, and have done so in a respectful, if rather blunt and forceful, manner. I even agreed to tone myself down, which I did not have to do. You might show a bit of gratitude and grace. PM has been quite patient and forbearing in tolerating your, ahem, demanding nature. Your stamping around here insisting that everyone change to suit you is frankly the height of rudeness and insolence.

    3. Generalizations: Your argument in this regard is tedious. It simply is not necessary to type “NAWALT” or “NACWALT” in front of every factual assertion. Of course there are exceptions and outliers. The fact that the rule does not fit every single woman or man or human simply does not need to be said. It is overly cumbersome to do so, and moreover everyone here understands NAWALT. The fact is that even if NAWALT, enough women are like that. Even if NACWALT, enough Christian women are like that. Even if NAMALT, enough men are like that. Or at least enough such that the observation is generally true. If you don’t think it is, present evidence to support your case.

    • #175 by deti on November 8, 2012 - 10:53 AM

      I’d also respectfully note, Clock, that if I deployed your commenting and argumentation tactics at, oh, say, Jezebel or Pandagon or Feministing, I’d be banned inside of a minute and all comments deleted. My IP would be tracked, my ISP notified, and my identity and location outed to my family, my employers, and probably to local, state and federal law enforcement.

      So it seems to me that tolerance, kindness, free speech and the free exchange of ideas has far more to fear from our feminist counterparts than it does from the manosphere or the Evil Patriarchy.

      • #176 by fi on November 8, 2012 - 12:53 PM

        Not sure why you’d be tracked down and law engorcement notified and your employers,friends and family too. Is that what happens in America when you comment? Who does it and why? Can you clarify? What law are you breaking?

      • #177 by just visiting on November 8, 2012 - 2:19 PM

        Fi, tactics like that are used to chill debate through shaming, fear and lawfare. At least in Canada.

      • #178 by James on November 8, 2012 - 3:24 PM

        Yes, in the UK too, though I’ve only heard of this happening for speech about race or religion, not gender. Jermaine Jackson appeared on the show Celebrity Big Brother, and in the course of the discussion about a contestant who had been expelled from the show for racist remarks, used the words “white trash”. He was duly interviewed by the British Police for this race crime of his own.

        In the UK, the police must consider a crime to be racially aggravated if the victim or anyone else declares that they feel it is so. I think they are no longer legally compelled to investigate, but that is only because, as any sane person could have predicted, they had become inundated with trivial offences.

    • #179 by Clockwatcher on November 8, 2012 - 2:11 PM

      You have come here and demanded that everyone kowtow to your sensibilities

      Deti,

      I have never asked anyone to “kowtow to my sensibilities” apart from the men here who call themselves Christians. I couldn’t care less what the non-Christians here do or say. My posts were concerned with you and James. I pointed out that your use of language, and tolerance of same, is not something that I think any Christian, whether male or female, would be proud to display in front of Our Lord. I do not feel such language is compatible with Christian faith or family values. I do not believe it would stand up to scrutiny with most serious committed orthodox Christians, whether male or female, even though it is considered okay here. I believe (but cannot prove) that people like Tim Staples, Peter Kreeft, Paul Washer, and William Lane Craig would agree with me wholeheartedly. I was hoping that by explaining this to you, you might take a critical look at yourself and your role in the manosphere, and that something good would come of this for you personally and for other Christians in the manosphere.

      By all means if you want to encourage PMAN to take legal action against me I will not try to dissuade you. I will now leave the blog as a commenter permanently in the hope that the gesture will help you to feel less abused by me.

      Clockwatcher

      • #180 by deti on November 8, 2012 - 2:26 PM

        Clock:

        The problem was your insistence on derailing the conversation by focusing on your objections to my use of certain Anglo-Saxon vulgarities. You rail on about me as though I’m some sort of influential figure. I am not. I’m just a man with strong opinions, and sometimes it takes strong language to shake men out of their blue pill stupors.

        We’re not here to talk about my speech. We’re here to help men navigate a sexual marketplace that seeks to destroy them at every turn. If you want to help, please do so. We could use all the help we can get.

      • #181 by fi on November 8, 2012 - 2:35 PM

        “You rail on about me as though I’m some sort of influential figure. I am not”
        You are being disengenuous. You know how you are viewed by the other male commentators here. ;)

      • #182 by James on November 8, 2012 - 3:45 PM

        Tell us, how do you think Deti is viewed by the other male commentators?

        For myself, if Deti or anyone else is talking horseshit, I will tell him so. The thing is though, I usually agree with him.

        I suspect there is a difference here beween the male and female approach. We are sometimes reminded to avoid ad hominem insults, but the men usually avoid ad hominem compliments as well, and we will try to think about the comment rather than the person writing it. If someone feels insulted by a comment, remember: unless the thread has degenerated into a troll-fest, it’s not personal: it’s not about you, it’s about what you wrote.

      • #183 by James on November 8, 2012 - 4:22 PM

        Reading your last comment I see that you appear to be critical of my language. You are forgetting that I offended you not with bad language, but by pointing out the complicity of the previous Pope in deliberately concealing evidence of child sex abuse by Priests, and by suggesting that his teachings on human sexuality were therefore not worth reading.

        You might not have seen my further comment in that part of the thread presenting evidence given by a man whose integrity is beyond question, of the complicity of not only John Paul II but also Cardinal Ratzinger, now of course Pope himself.

        We are talking about moral and secular crimes of the highest order. Crimes that far exceed the exploits of a few pick-up artists. Crimes that, if committed by anyone else, would lead to a very long prison sentence.

        You have studiously avoided commenting on this matter. And yet you tell us that we “seem to lack an understanding of personal moral accountability.”

        You must have thought about this. Surely by now all Catholics, but especially those who choose to discuss in public the Church’s approach to human sexuality, must have reached some level of personal understanding of the sins of the Church. What is your understanding?

      • #184 by just visiting on November 8, 2012 - 4:50 PM

        To be clear, I don’t have a dog in this fight. I’m not Catholic and I’m not a PUA.
        The last time that I checked, Catholics are not advocating child sexual abuse. The fact that the church covered it up to save their reputations is sick, but doesn’t cancel out doctorine. Or for that matter, a convincing argument that they might make.

        Put another way, if some PUA ended up doing illegal things. And let’s say that the king’s of the manosphere covered it up. Does that make the doctorine of pua any less relevant. For that matter, would it make the writings of the king’s of the sphere any less relevant.

        No.

      • #185 by Clockwatcher on November 8, 2012 - 4:58 PM

        Clock:

        The problem was your insistence on derailing the conversation by focusing on your objections to my use of certain Anglo-Saxon vulgarities. You rail on about me as though I’m some sort of influential figure. I am not. I’m just a man with strong opinions, and sometimes it takes strong language to shake men out of their blue pill stupors.

        We’re not here to talk about my speech. We’re here to help men navigate a sexual marketplace that seeks to destroy them at every turn. If you want to help, please do so. We could use all the help we can get.

        Deti,

        As I wrote earlier this evening, I am outta here. Much as I feel you are sorely misguided and at this moment in time blinded about some basic things, you are highly intelligent and perceptive. Moreover, and even more importantly, I sense strongly that your heart is in the right place – and, boy, do I ever admire your passion.

        Life has taught me that, often contrary to outward appearances, no one does any important work alone. I think you could possibly become a great Christian leader in the Manosphere – but you have a long, long way to go in my view before that will happen, if it ever does. Challenging you to get there is a battle for someone far stronger, far wiser, and far more dispassionate in temperment than me.

        I will certainly continue to read but my posting days here are over, as stated earlier. If an alt.Christian.Manosphere ever evolves, which I would love, and I live to see it, our paths may cross again.

      • #186 by fi on November 8, 2012 - 5:16 PM

        James, this is why I claimed Deti was being disengenous portraying himself as a man without influence:
        “Careful, Deti has reputation for writing excellent comments. They are so good that another blogger has created a blog just to repost those comments (http://detination.wordpress.com/). ”

        QED

      • #187 by James on November 8, 2012 - 6:23 PM

        I agree. He has a reputation for writing excellent comments. I suppose that counts as “influence”!

      • #188 by fi on November 8, 2012 - 6:45 PM

        James – er yes…if people pay attention to what he writes and take note of his views, then that is indeed ‘influence’.

  36. #189 by Clockwatcher on November 8, 2012 - 5:17 PM

    Reading your last comment I see that you appear to be critical of my language. You are forgetting that I offended you not with bad language, but by pointing out the complicity of the previous Pope in deliberately concealing evidence of child sex abuse by Priests, and by suggesting that his teachings on human sexuality were therefore not worth reading.

    You might not have seen my further comment in that part of the thread presenting evidence given by a man whose integrity is beyond question, of the complicity of not only John Paul II but also Cardinal Ratzinger, now of course Pope himself.

    We are talking about moral and secular crimes of the highest order. Crimes that far exceed the exploits of a few pick-up artists. Crimes that, if committed by anyone else, would lead to a very long prison sentence.

    You have studiously avoided commenting on this matter. And yet you tell us that we “seem to lack an understanding of personal moral accountability.”

    You must have thought about this. Surely by now all Catholics, but especially those who choose to discuss in public the Church’s approach to human sexuality, must have reached some level of personal understanding of the sins of the Church. What is your understanding?

    James,

    I just saw your Hans Kung post tonight, which is why I didn’t reply. Hans Kung credible? Good grief! Sorry but Kung is a raving nutcase – he makes Joel Osteen look like Jonathan Edwards – I think he may even have been excommunicated….google “Hans Kung Schtick” if you want to know how serious Catholics view him…anyway, you did not offend me in any way with your post about the Pope, although your lack of a basic “thank you” when I complimented you grated on me, I must admit.

    Your take on the subject of Pope John Paul II is one I have heard not a hundred but a thousand times. It is largely based on ignorance about how the Catholic Church operates (misinformation) and used as anti-Catholic propaganda (disinformation). Nearly all Protestants are ignorant about Catholic ecclesiology…anyway now is not the time or place. Even assuming arguendo that the two popes both knowingly did terrible things (and the facts here are very much in dispute), those things are not the “sins of the Church” but their sins alone.

    BTW I agree with what you said about the UK including your superbly well-observed comment about the evolution of the social welfare state. You are right – “socially engineered” is not correct – its origins were well-intentioned and sought to correct a grave social ill which caused much suffering. Most people miss this subtlety. Thank you for teaching me something.

    My contract is up. I look forward to my lurking days.

  37. #190 by Clockwatcher on November 8, 2012 - 5:18 PM

    Clock – I agree with you and support what you say. Apart from all that stuff about ‘god’ which I’m afraid I skip.

    fi, thank you for your kind words.

  38. #191 by Clockwatcher on November 8, 2012 - 5:21 PM

    To be clear, I don’t have a dog in this fight. I’m not Catholic and I’m not a PUA.
    The last time that I checked, Catholics are not advocating child sexual abuse. The fact that the church covered it up to save their reputations is sick, but doesn’t cancel out doctorine. Or for that matter, a convincing argument that they might make.

    Put another way, if some PUA ended up doing illegal things. And let’s say that the king’s of the manosphere covered it up. Does that make the doctorine of pua any less relevant. For that matter, would it make the writings of the king’s of the sphere any less relevant.

    No.

    Thank you, just visiting – this is perfectly stated, in a nutshell – I have nothing to add.

    • #192 by James on November 8, 2012 - 6:18 PM

      Well, there’s certainly more to add. The strength of the Catholic Church is the decency of the vast majority of believers and Priests; and the sins of its leaders clearly are not a blemish on that which they have faith in.

      I appreciated your compliment, but as I suggested above, it is contrary to netiquette.

      If Hans Küng says that a particular letter was sent to bishops on a particular date with particular instructions, then I believe him. The fact that Catholics regard him as theologically unsound (or a “raving nutcase” as you put it) is beside the point. He probably said what he did because a friendly bishop showed him the letter. Thank God he is willing to speak out, because otherwise the faithful would have no idea what wickedness is perpetrated by the hierarchy.

      To say “the facts here are very much in dispute” is to clutch at straws. I could probably find a hundred links like the one below.

      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2018551/Pope-recalls-ambassador-PM-Enda-Kenny-damns-Vatican-child-rape-cover-up.html

      I saw Enda Kenny’s speech on the TV news, and it was quite moving, not least because he spoke of his regret as a practicing Catholic at having to deliver the news that he did.

      By the way, Hans Küng has not been excommunicated, merely forbidden from teaching Catholic Theology, which seems fair enough. He can teach Theology, but not in Catholic institutions, and he can no longer declare that it is Catholic Theology. I’ve heard him speak, and he’s impressive.

      I’ve learned from your posts, and I hope you will seriously consider starting your own blog.

      • #193 by Clockwatcher on November 9, 2012 - 3:06 AM

        I’ve learned from your posts, and I hope you will seriously consider starting your own blog.

        James,

        Although I think the debauchery commonplace in the Manosphere — and the Christians who tolerate it–is long overdue for a good stiff “critique” I am, for various reasons, not the woman to do it. Were I to venture there, the first article would be something along the lines of “The Christian Man, the Manosphere, and Cognitive Dissonance,” or somesuch. I would also like to write an article about how Manosphere uses techniques very similar to those of social liberals/feminists, thus undermining its potential to transform the culture for the better. The underlying theme would be how radical feminists and the Manosphere have far more in common than they would ever be able to see or admit. And on and on….

        You, Dalrock, and Deti are married, but on the last couple of threads here, a few references have been made to single Christian men who could not find a compatible Christian female. Do they read the manosphere? I don’t know. i know of Christian females who are in a similar predicament – of various ages. I am thinking there is a need for some kind of online mechanism where single Christian men who identify with many Manosphere ideas (the conservative ones) can find likeminded single females. I know of no such place. So maybe I will set up some kind of website/blog to try to address this. I haven’t figured out the logistics of how this would work. Maybe not a “dating website,” but simply a link where people could post details or send them to me and I could match their email addresses up and leave the rest to them and fate. With free webmail addresses, it would be free for everyone and minimally invasive.

        NB: There is one man who posts in the Manosphere who claims to be an old fashioned Catholic, but I have seen posts from him where he boasts about gamind and fornicating. Men such as he would NOT be welcome in my hypothetical blog, although he does need our prayers. But he would be a good case study for an article on “Christian Men, the Manosphere, and Cognitive Dissonance.”

        I was very touched by the article linked to here about the postal worker in NYC who had resorted to carrying a sandwich board asking for a date. I know females who are similarly lonely and not “Hypergamous,” but would take one look at the way that females are gleefully objectified in the Manosphere and would be as repulsed by the mere notion of its existence as my late husband would have been. I wish these types of people could find a way to find each other in this cold world.

        If I can manage to pull something together I will ask PMAN to post a link and maybe something good could come of it.

      • #194 by Fi on November 9, 2012 - 4:11 AM

        Clock – “The underlying theme would be how radical feminists and the Manosphere have far more in common than they would ever be able to see or admit.”
        I doubt anyone will agree with me but I think the manosphere and feminism, and their development and progress, are identical. It reminds me of radical feminism in the 80’s – women are the superior sex, developing their own language to express feminist concepts, intense debates, a belief that that being a woman means that they had more in common with all other women than any men, statements like “men are…” which is the equivalent of NAWALT etc etc. I was there in the 80s, and a student so saw it all at university, and knew people in these groups, and shared flats with them. Following the same trajectory manosphere issues will eventually become main stream and watered down with more and more people recognising there is an inbalance and society adjusting to acknowledge that.

  39. #195 by Clockwatcher on November 8, 2012 - 5:25 PM

    James,

    Ditch “Hans Kung Schtick” – there is nothing. I forgot that the website crashed and now only fragments are cached. Try “Hans Kung” + howlinglyabsurd instead.

    Cheers

  40. #199 by dannyfrom504 on November 8, 2012 - 7:53 PM

    i’ve NEVER slept with a woman in her 40’s. what’s it like?

    i need to make a weekend run down there soon. talked to Bill?

  41. #200 by Clockwatcher on November 9, 2012 - 6:15 AM

    Clock – “The underlying theme would be how radical feminists and the Manosphere have far more in common than they would ever be able to see or admit.”
    I doubt anyone will agree with me but I think the manosphere and feminism, and their development and progress, are identical. It reminds me of radical feminism in the 80′s – women are the superior sex, developing their own language to express feminist concepts, intense debates, a belief that that being a woman means that they had more in common with all other women than any men, statements like “men are…” which is the equivalent of NAWALT etc etc. I was there in the 80s, and a student so saw it all at university, and knew people in these groups, and shared flats with them. Following the same trajectory manosphere issues will eventually become main stream and watered down with more and more people recognising there is an inbalance and society adjusting to acknowledge that.

    I am fascinated by your comment, fi, especially the last sentence and your prognosis about where this is going. I would like to discuss further with you.

    I posted yesterday that I was leaving the blog and I am in the process of doing so. I have only continued to post in order to respond to people such as yourself, James, and Deti, who took the time to respond to me. I felt it would be ill-mannered to not do so, regardless of philosophical differences. Please send me a mail if you wish to hash this out any further.

    NB: I too was “a student who saw it all at university” – I know 80s’ Feminism inside out, including its own internal culture wars – Dworkin, Mackinnon, Naomi Wolfe, etc.

    Hope to hear from you – if not, I will keep an eye out for your comments.

    To anyone else reading who has a comment for me: Apologies in advance for not responding to any future post. Contact details are clockw at hush.com if you wish to reach me.

    • #201 by James on November 9, 2012 - 7:59 AM

      “The underlying theme would be how radical feminists and the Manosphere have far more in common than they would ever be able to see or admit.”

      I will accept your hypothesis if you can identify a single Manosphere opinion leader who is as absurd as Dworkin, and whose absurdity is merely ignored by followers who are too enthralled to point it out.

      She told us all the truth about oppression, somehow without mentioning that her chief oppressor was 6 feet tall, white, and plugged into the wall in her kitchen.

      The takeaway from Naomi Wolf’s latest book was that she discovered that her sexual pleasure had something to do with the nerve endings in her genitals, and their connection to her brain. No shit, Sherlock.

      Ms Wolf said “I almost fell off my chair in astonishment … neural wiring? Not culture, not upbringing, not patriarchy, not feminism, not Freud?…”

      Why waste your time reading the horseshit that these narcissistic fools write? Ten years later they will only be saying “Oh my, I was so wrong” and yet manage to extend their Mea Culpa to the size of another hardback book.

      The Manosphere may have its share of debauchery, but it cannot compete with the feminized mainstream culture for sheer intellectual decadence.

    • #202 by James on November 9, 2012 - 8:39 AM

      “Following the same trajectory manosphere issues will eventually become main stream and watered down with more and more people recognising there is an inbalance and society adjusting to acknowledge that.”

      Yes, I agree with this. Rather than “watered down”, I would suggest that after a few years, someone fresh to the Manosphere will take the ideas that work, quietly ignore the ones that don’t, and try to push the good stuff into the mainstream. None of us here will be able to do that, firstly because we are too immersed in the whole range of ideas, good and bad, and secondly because our mis-steps in the process of forming these ideas are recorded forever, and would be used against us.

      “Christian Men, the Manosphere, and Cognitive Dissonance.”

      Now there’s an interesting title. I won’t comment further, because it really is time for this thread to end.

      • #203 by fi on November 9, 2012 - 9:47 AM

        By ‘watered down’ I mean the extreme ideas will be dropped. And at the moment these forums cater for everybody from men who want to make themselves more attractive to women but live with them, to men who dislike them and blame them for every ill in the world, and cover a range of topics. In my view ‘men’ want to be attractive to ‘women’, and vice versa, so extreme views will, like radical feminism, not end up as mainstream views, but they serve a useful purpose in highlighting the imbalance that exists and needs to be corrected. I don’t imagine anyone agrees though

      • #204 by James on November 9, 2012 - 2:45 PM

        I almost agree, except that I think the ideas that will eventually be adopted might include some of the ones that are now considered “extreme”: they just won’t seem that way afterwards. In the UK we now have gay marriage (except in name) and 100 years ago that would have seemed batshit insane. Yet I expect you could find any number of more modest proposals from a century ago, that we are still waiting for.

      • #205 by LostSailor on November 10, 2012 - 12:53 PM

        Rather than “watered down”, I would suggest that after a few years, someone fresh to the Manosphere will take the ideas that work, quietly ignore the ones that don’t, and try to push the good stuff into the mainstream. None of us here will be able to do that, firstly because we are too immersed in the whole range of ideas, good and bad, and secondly because our mis-steps in the process of forming these ideas are recorded forever, and would be used against us.

        I disagree that “none of us here will be able to do that,” because it’s already happening. While I’m no expert on the history, the Manosphere had it’s genesis out of PUA culture and the Men’s Rights Movement and developed into more general Game philosophy primarily with Roissy. It processed further with blogs like Dalrock, etc., extending the concepts into the Christian realm, and Athol Kay, extending the Red Pill into the marriage realm. For my part, I first discovered the Manosphere with Roissy, and it was devastating. But I quickly realized that not all of the ideas would work for me, so I’ve taken what I find valuable and apply it to my life and leave the rest, even while acknowledging it’s truth. TPM is part of the continuum applying what works for “older” men. And many Manosphere concepts are already filtering into the mainstream.

        The fact that more and more women are showing up on Manosphere blogs is evident of this, some trying to reframe the discussion in ways that suit their own interests or religious precepts and some, gobsmacked by the truth, agreeing and supporting us.

        Our writing and discussion can only be used against us in a feminist context, which won’t work if we don’t accept it, and we don’t.

    • #206 by James on November 9, 2012 - 9:41 AM

      “[The Manosphere mirrors early feminism’s view that] women are the superior sex, developing their own language to express feminist concepts, intense debates, a belief that that being a woman means that they had more in common with all other women than any men, statements like ‘men are…’ which is the equivalent of NAWALT etc etc.”

      This is not how I read it at all.

      Man and women are complementary, neither is superior to the other. Yet living according to this shibboleth of my mother’s generation of feminists gave me a prolonged and dismal failure in my love life. The reason is that when a man does what women say they want, they do not respect him and soon leave. Yet if he behaves as if he is dominant, they will stick around. It doesn’t mean that men _are_ superior, it is just a statement about what works and what doesn’t work in a relationship.

      Do any of the men here believe that they have more in common with all other men than any women? Of course it’s nonsense.

      • #207 by fi on November 9, 2012 - 10:04 AM

        James – This is one site out of a range, and some of the others aren’t so balanced. And even here, there are a range of commentators. I was expressing my opinion about the Manosphere ‘movement’ and the ideas and themes expressed there in general, not this site.

      • #208 by James on November 9, 2012 - 2:31 PM

        That’s interesting. Now that you mention it, I do recall sites with a high drongo count, but I tend not to go back to them. Are you doing a research project?

      • #209 by fi on November 9, 2012 - 2:42 PM

        James – er no. I’m just nosey ;)

  42. #210 by deti on November 9, 2012 - 10:57 AM

    I hope Privateman will indulge me a little as I write this, which will be one of my last comment on this thread. PM, you’ve really let me blow off a lot of steam on this thread. All of us, including I, have driven the topics very far afield from the SMP and middle age, and finding middle aged women attractive.

    ON THE CHURCH

    I don’t begrudge Clock one bit. Philosophically and ideologically, I suspect she and I are closer than either of us will care to admit, at least publicly. I do have a lot of cognitive dissonance. I am pretty pissed at my Church about a lot of that, because my Church and its people in general, and its men in particular, have gotten much of this wrong for many years. Roissy the Dark Lord and his many, many sons in the manosphere (Rollo, Roosh, Badger, PM, Frost, Vox Day, Danny, Mentu and Ashur (now in hiding or on sabbatical), Athol Kay, FFY, and yes, even Dalrock and Paul Elam) are better on male-female issues than the Church is.

    My Church should be the standard bearer on these issues But instead of leading the thinking on them, my Church and a few of its people find themselves playing catchup to a mid-level government bureaucrat writing in his spare time about his dating and sexual exploits in the nation’s capital. Roissy has generated a comprehensive synthesis on the current economic, cultural, and sexual marketplace, as well as on human nature, that literally outmatches anything the foremost thinkers and theologians of our day have presented and he’s done it as little more than a hobby.

    At the very least, Roissy’s body of work is more credible than most. He at least has practiced what he has preached. I am not a Roman Catholic; but I consider myself in communion with it on many issues. In light of the sex scandals in the Church I simply cannot consider its voice, expressed in Theology of the Body or elsewhere, to have much credibility.

    • #211 by Clockwatcher on November 9, 2012 - 11:39 AM

      I am not a Roman Catholic; but I consider myself in communion with it on many issues.

      Deti,

      I am a wishy-washy hypocrite of the highest order for coming back for one last comment, but technology does allow the patient and dispassionate blogmaster to start a new “Women over 40″ thread for those who wish to pursue the topic. My guess is that PMAN is probably more than a bit tickled that his blog contains a thread at the moment with nearly 200 comments spanning a wide range of ideas, many of them quite thought-provoking if far too churchy for his taste. This is a notable achievement in itself in an oversaturated blogosphere.

      If I said “Deti, come home” you might think I was disrespecting your Protestant faith, so I am not going to say it. I respect your faith on its own terms, even if you think me a pagan.

      What I will say to you today is that I believe you would benefit intellectually from reading the thoughts of some of the great Catholic men in the blogosphere. They are far ahead of the curve on many of these issues in comparison to the shenanigans that are going on in many of the Protestant denominations – and I am afraid your characterization is an accurate one. Ingrid Schleuter, a married woman of deep faith whom I hold in high esteem, has gone through personal hell for publicly challening the corruption in the Protestant churches.

      Great Catholic bloggers – the list is long. Many are converts, and successful family men, from various Protestant denominations. These men include Michael O’Brien (artist and writer), Dwight Longnecker, The Catholic Knight (convert from Calvinism), John Salza – and the Catholic men who set up the Coming Home Network. All have their own focus, just as you have yours, but I see considerable overlap in many of the recurring themes.

      In my view, far more unites Protestant and Catholic than divides us, but very few are able to see or appreciate this. At the very least, Christian men who are concerned with the breakdown of our culture such as yourself need to start talking to each other instead of simply setting up their own little fiefdoms.

      Michael O’Brien, a Canadian gentlemen, recently published an outstanding book called “Harry Potter and the Paganization of Children’s Culture.” You would recognize many of its themes. He has many free articles on his website.

      Best of luck to you in your journey.

      • #212 by Clockwatcher on November 9, 2012 - 11:41 AM

        Correction – Salza and O’Brien are not converts, but I believe the others I listed are.

      • #213 by deti on November 9, 2012 - 1:13 PM

        Clock has a crush on me; she just won’t admit it.

      • #214 by James on November 9, 2012 - 7:46 PM

        The converts are often more outstanding than “cradle Catholics”. Cardinal Newman, for example.

    • #215 by pb on November 10, 2012 - 12:10 AM

      One would be better off reading the Church Fathers. I’m Catholic but I disagree with CW’s line of advocacy in this thread and do not see it as being persuasive for non-Catholics.

  43. #216 by deti on November 9, 2012 - 11:11 AM

    ON THE CHURCH PART II

    Our church is behind on these issues because of feminism, plain and simple.

    Girls and women do not want to hear the truth about their own natures. They don’t want to be told how sexually degenerate they can be if left to their own devices. They don’t want to be told or shown what shallow bitches they can be. They don’t want to be told that women cheat on husbands just as much as men cheat on wives. They don’t want to be told that the vast majority of them are good looking enough to have sex with the top men, but they are not hot enough to be marriage material. They don’t want to be told that slutting around makes them LESS desirable as wives and LESS able to attach themselves to one man. They don’t want mirrors held up to their behaviors.

    Our church does not want to tell girls and women the truth about their own natures. because it knows the consequences:

    1. Loss of political and cultural influence (as if the church has not marginalized itself enough already).

    2. Loss of members.

    3. Loss of professionals and volunteers willing to do its work.

    4. And most important, loss of money.

    Even more to the point, I am not sure the church even knows the truth about female nature anymore. It certainly used to. At least the protestant Church seems to have formulated an entire false theology to support women in their frivorces, their sluthood and their rebellion against men and families. If you want to know what that theology is, read Dalrock. I’m not going to repost it here because that’s not the point.

    If the Church has any hope of attracting men back to it, it will have to:

    1. jettison feminist “theology”;
    2. return to a benign patriarchy in which men are dominant and women are submissive, 3. put the full force of the Church’s authority behind controlling female sexual behavior and imposing Church consequences on individuals for failing to do so; and
    4. the Roman Catholic Church needs to stop handing out annulments like candy.

    • #217 by fi on November 9, 2012 - 1:11 PM

      I think you’re over emphasising the importance of any church to be honest. I haven’t been to church since I was 13, have not brought my children up in it, would consider myself an atheist or at least agnostic, but still manage to not be sexually degenerate. And neither are my children despite being brought up by me :)
      It’s about the values you get from your parents and peer group.

    • #218 by James on November 9, 2012 - 3:18 PM

      The USA and England are different. The Church of England has long ceased to be significant, partly because the English are religiously apathetic, and partly because the leaders of the CofE are often of low calibre.

      I believe, but may be wrong, that Americans are much more likely to be religious than we are, and therefore the Churches have more of an opportunity to resist changes in the secular culture. They fail dismally at doing so, as a glance at Dalrock’s blog will show.

      There was a comment, I think at Dalrock, explaining why this will never change. It’s the “loss of members” that Deti mentions. Protestant Churches are in competition with each other for members, and so it is suicidal for them to offend their congregation, who always have the option of joining a different Church. The result is a race to the bottom. The changes that Deti and Dalrock want will not happen unless the secular culture changes first.

      • #219 by deti on November 9, 2012 - 3:30 PM

        James:

        “Americans are much more likely to be religious than we are, and therefore the Churches have more of an opportunity to resist changes in the secular culture.”

        No. Americans are more likely to APPEAR religious than Brits. Americans are more likely to go through religious motions than Brits. Americans are more likely to call themselves religious than to actually BE religious.

        The Church in North America simply outwardly APPEARS to resist secular changes in the culture, but it does not really.

        Cases in point: The Church says it abhors extramarital sex. But the Church ignores at female promiscuity and REFUSES to shame sluts. The Church never calls women out for sexual sin. At the same time the Church blames sexual promiscuity on men and doesn’t hesitate to shame men even for legitimate sexual desires.

        The Church says it frowns on divorce; yet blames divorce on the husbands even when the wives instigated the divorces.

  44. #220 by deti on November 9, 2012 - 1:10 PM

    ON THE MANOSPHERE’S GOALS AND ITS FUTURE

    I read with interest the discussion between fi and clock and James on similarities between the manosphere and feminism.

    Clock: “The underlying theme would be how radical feminists and the Manosphere have far more in common than they would ever be able to see or admit.”

    fi: “I doubt anyone will agree with me but I think the manosphere and feminism, and their development and progress, are identical. It reminds me of radical feminism in the 80′s – women are the superior sex, developing their own language to express feminist concepts, intense debates, a belief that that being a woman means that they had more in common with all other women than any men, statements like “men are…” which is the equivalent of NAWALT etc etc. *** Following the same trajectory manosphere issues will eventually become main stream and watered down with more and more people recognising there is an inbalance and society adjusting to acknowledge that.”

    There are a number of differences our esteemed female commenters are missing.

    1. The only real similarity between feminism and the manosphere is that they started out as small movements, and they seem to use some of the same argumentation tactics.

    2. MALE AND FEMALE PARITY: One of feminism’s goals was not to right wrongs; but to achieve “equality” and parity with men on every level. Feminism sought to eliminate all differences between men and women; transforming women into men who can have babies. Quite simplhe feminist movement hates the concepts of male dominance and female submissiveness, and liberal feminist Christians have evolved a false “theology” to address them.

    By contrast, the manosphere seeks to show men and women are different and complementary. The manosphere seeks a return to the biblical truths that caused relationships to work for millenia. Men do not want “equality” with women because we recognize men and women aren’t equal in relation to each other.

    3. FEMALE “INDEPENDENCE”: Feminism tells women that in order to be fully actualized people, they must become more like men: Women must get educations and careers. Women must work and earn their own money (not have the choice — but they MUST, otherwise they are traitors to the cause). Women must approach sex like an unrestrained man does, seeking sex for its own sake. Families and children are afterthoughts, to be obtained after every other goal is reached. Women must have complete and total economic and sexual freedom from men. Women must never depend on men for anything.

    By contrast, the manosphere does not tell men they need to become more like women to realize their potential. Just the opposite, in fact. The manosphere sees that men becoming more like women is a very big part of the problem. Men have in the past 50 years adopted too many feminine attributes, mostly so their mothers and teachers could control and mold them:

    –consensus building and groupthink
    –taking offense at legitimate criticism
    –supplication
    –placing others above self
    –solipsism
    –submissiveness
    –placing emotions and feelings above logic and reason
    –placing talk and interpersonal interactions above taking necessary action and personal development
    –elevating being nice, personable and affable above being good, capable and proficient

    The manosphere exhorts men simply to be the men they are. Resilient. Self-reliant. Ending relationships that have served their purposes or no longer work. Refusing to pursue or continue relationships when the benefits don’t outweigh the costs or potential risks. Vocational development (but not at the expense of health or sanity). Refusing to supplicate for female attention. Direct confrontation of issues and problems, even when the issue and problem is himself, or a wife or longtime companion. Standing on their own two feet and allowing their own masculinity to speak for itself.

    4. WOMEN AND SEX: Feminism touted sexual freedom as one of its main attributes. A woman could use birth control and eliminate the fear of pregnancy; or use condoms and vastly reduce the chances of contracting an STD. Not only that, but sexual freedom was to be a prime method of expression of what it meant to be a woman. She was to be free to “explore her body” and “be true to herself” because “she’s come a long way, baby!” To do that, she suddenly found herself “entitled” to have sex with the most attractive men who would, of course, have sex with her (but never, ever commit anything to her).

    The issue here is not so much differences between the genders, but rather the gross errors and wrong assumptions feminists made in approaching sex and the Sexual Revolution.

    Feminists made several grave miscalculations in using sex the way they have. First, it has fundamentally changed the way women see men sexually. Since sex is so readily available to them, they forgot that it is not so readily available to men. That really changed how all men approached women for sex. It caused men to assume the submissive positions in their relationships with women, creating a power vacuum the women had to fill, thus causing these men to become unattractive. But it caused the top men to become even more brazen, bold and cavalier, thus increasing their attractiveness.

    This has caused the apex fallacy to run amok. Women’s natural tendency to hypergamy and to vie for the very best men they can get has caused the division between “attractive man” and “unattractive man” to become so distorted and exaggerated that it has taken on cartoonish proportions. “Attractive man” is now one of the following:

    1, an extreme douchebag
    2. a very good looking man
    3. a smooth international playboy
    4. a dark, brooding, mysterious man
    5. a fantastically wealthy man
    6. a man at the very top of his profession (but it must be a prestigious profession, such as law, medicine, entertainment, or business)

    “Unattractive man” is all other men.

    Second, feminists failed to take human nature into account. They either did not realize or did not care to address the fact that women having sex like men would create a sexual marketplace which was wholly separate and apart from the marriage marketplace. Moreover, they did not realize or care to address that this new SMP would create significant disincentives for many men and women even to consider being part of the MMP.

    Third, they wrongly presumed that engrafting feminist precepts onto this sexual marketplace wouldn’t really change the marriage marketplace all that much. Feminists presumed that men would simply be there and ready to marry them once women were done doing whatever they wanted to do: either school, or working, or extracting whatever they could from the alpha of the month. And it’s not just the men they wanted to wait for marriage; it was the ATTRACTIVE men whom they were expecting to simply bide their time.

    Fourth, I suspect some feminists wrongly believed that accelerating the sexual part of male-female relations would also accelerate the parties to marriage.

    Fifth (and this is part of the Third paragraph above, really), feminists presumed men would simply do what they had always done: continue to offer commitment in the form of marriage; and continue to offer investment in the form of increasing earning power and monetary support, EVEN IN THE ABSENCE OF A POSITIVE INCENTIVE TO DO SO. Feminists did not account for the fact that their behavior was creating both positive and negative incentives, that men would figure out those incentives, and that men would respond logically and pragmatically to those incentives. Feminists did not account for the fact that the top men who were getting most of the sex had no incentive to marry. Feminists did not account for the fact that the men who weren’t getting sex had no incentive to better themselves and fund the feminists’ pet social/government programs with tax dollars. Feminists did not account for the fact that the men in the middle, the Vox Day DELTAs and GAMMAs, were continuing to do what women expected; continuing to live by the old 1950s rules of school/get job/marry nice girl/have babies, and either STILL weren’t getting interest from the opposite sex or were finding themselves on the receiving end of frivorces, thus eliminating their incentives.

    Feminists failed to account for the fact that no marriage means no commitment; no commitment means no reason for male work, no reason for male work means no work from men; no work from men means no economic growth; no economic growth means no money; and no money means all of us, including women, are well and truly fucked.

    Feminists also failed to account for the fact that increasingly, women are the only ones who care about whether all of us are well and truly fucked.

    Thanks, PM. Make it a post, if you think it’s good enough.

    • #221 by fi on November 9, 2012 - 1:27 PM

      Deti – I’m not going to address all the points as getting into a detailed discussion about all your points would be boring. Instead I summarise by saying Feminism arose from women as a result of feeling disadvantaged in comparison to men. Society has tilted in their favour and men are disadvantaged. Now it is time to tilt the other way in response to men gathering and saying they are disadvantaged.

      • #222 by Altimanix on November 9, 2012 - 5:15 PM

        Nah, we’ll be poolside enjoying the decline. Thanks for the offer though

    • #223 by just visiting on November 9, 2012 - 2:48 PM

      Deti

      1, an extreme douchebag
      2. a very good looking man
      3. a smooth international playboy
      4. a dark, brooding, mysterious man
      5. a fantastically wealthy man
      6. a man at the very top of his profession (but it must be a prestigious profession, such as law, medicine, entertainment, or business)

      “Unattractive man” is all other men.

      The only reason that I don’t call baloney on this sphere meme is because I don’t live in the State’s, so I’ve forced myself to suspend disbelief. I don’t doubt that such men have women. I’m skeptical that all women would only date ,sleep or marry such men. I am also skeptical that women could not be attracted to men that don’t live up to this list. I’ve also considered that the men in the sphere may be drawn to certain personality types.Personally, I think that it makes for good male hamster food to justify certain behaviors.

      Yes, there are a lot of similarities to feminsm and the frameworks and behaviors in the sphere. Gawd, anyone who grew up around encounter groups and the like can spot it instantly.. I get hives just thinking about it. And I see the similarities. The language, memes, supremecy, group think,shaming, outrage addiction, beta male/feminine women shaming , the other sex is dangerous, marriage is bad,promiscuity is good, sisterhood/brotherhood, and frame. There are times that I feel like a complete hypocrit for seeing the same program and biting my tongue at it. I’m no fan of feminism and the misandry that permeates it. I see the same thing with masculinism and misogyny.

      I have to ask. Is contempt necessary for male development? It sure the hell didn’t work for female development. And the psychological frame work seems to be the same shat different a-hole. Divide and conquer the sexes.

      I’m all for men and women being the best possible people that they can be. And the sphere offers a hell of a lot of good information. But yeah, the similarities …………….raise red flags.

      • #224 by deti on November 9, 2012 - 3:35 PM

        JV:

        “I’m skeptical that all women would only date ,sleep or marry such men. I am also skeptical that women could not be attracted to men that don’t live up to this list.”

        If by “attracted”, you mean “wants the status of marriage to a guy who at least has a job so that she won’t die alone and won’t have to work at her sucky job for the next 30 years”, then, yeah, I guess you don’t have to be on that list to be “attractive”.

      • #225 by just visiting on November 9, 2012 - 3:44 PM

        @ Deti
        If by “attracted”, you mean “wants the status of marriage to a guy who at least has a job so that she won’t die alone and won’t have to work at her sucky job for the next 30 years”, then, yeah, I guess you don’t have to be on that list to be “attractive”.

        Hardly. Most people do not live in one end or the other of a spectrum.

      • #226 by James on November 9, 2012 - 3:48 PM

        Interesting. I think this list of qualities shows more similarity between the two movements than the one in the earlier post. The contempt for people who are off-message is common to several political movements – the Greens, for example. Perhaps it is unavoidable, but it always ends up stifling debate.

        The list of “attractive” qualities is too narrow. Read about the qualities of an “alpha male”. Imagine the magnitude of these qualities for the most “alpha” 10% of men – not the small number of international playboys. Then look at the women’s profiles on a dating site. You will find that, when they say what they are looking for in a man, most of them have a roundabout way of saying “I’m looking for an alpha male”.

      • #227 by deti on November 9, 2012 - 3:49 PM

        JV:

        Respectfully, you didn’t read the entire comment. You zeroed in on language without reading it in its context.

      • #228 by James on November 9, 2012 - 3:50 PM

        And as someone said above about something else, once you’ve seen it, you can’t un-see it.

      • #229 by Fi on November 9, 2012 - 3:52 PM

        Deti – you’re married aren’t you? Whhich of the following would you say you are:

        1, an extreme douchebag
        2. a very good looking man
        3. a smooth international playboy
        4. a dark, brooding, mysterious man
        5. a fantastically wealthy man
        6. a man at the very top of his profession (but it must be a prestigious profession, such as law, medicine, entertainment, or business)
        :)

      • #230 by theprivateman on November 9, 2012 - 4:08 PM

        Why Fi, you just described me!

      • #231 by deti on November 9, 2012 - 3:57 PM

        fi:

        That’s a logical fallacy.

        The fact that I am married does not mean I am attractive.

        The fact that a man is married does not mean he is attractive.

        The fact that a woman marries does not mean she is attracted to her husband.

        Women marry for reasons other than attraction all the time. Women marry because they want to be married to someone, ANYONE, just so they are not alone or a subject of ridicule. They marry for the status of being married. They marry to get a man to impregnate them and support the baby. They marry to get a man to support a baby she has had or will have by another man.

        The world is full of unattractive married men.

      • #232 by deti on November 9, 2012 - 4:03 PM

        Women marry so their husbands will support them and they can either quit their shitty jobs or won’t have to rely on their shitty jobs. I suspect that many times, a woman has married in no small part because she has figured out that working for a living ain’t what it’s cracked up to be.

        Women marry so they can pool resources with a man and buy a house or car or other things they want.

        More than a few women marry because they are approaching 30 or are past it, she has slept with all the alphas in her social circle and no marriage proposals were forthcoming from any of them, so she sets out to find the first beta in the circle who will wife her up, and jumps on it.

      • #233 by fi on November 9, 2012 - 4:15 PM

        Deti – I assumed you were attractive. But maybe not after all. If you aren’t any of the 6 categories you listed as ‘attractive’ then I’ll have to assume you must fall into these categories then:
        “Women marry because they want to be married to someone, ANYONE, just so they are not alone or a subject of ridicule. They marry for the status of being married. They marry to get a man to impregnate them and support the baby. They marry to get a man to support a baby she has had or will have by another man.”
        As if you fall into neither category than your argument must therefore be invalid :)

      • #234 by James on November 9, 2012 - 7:19 PM

        There’s another option:

        7. All of the above.

    • #235 by James on November 9, 2012 - 7:32 PM

      “One of feminism’s goals was not to right wrongs; but to achieve “equality” and parity with men on every level. Feminism sought to eliminate all differences between men and women; transforming women into men who can have babies.”

      Sadly, this is spot-on.

      A friend of mine was looking for a book as a gift for her grandson. She saw a lot of books for girls, but none that would be suitable for a boy. The reason is that society sees a boy as an inferior and hyperactive form of girl.

      In another post someone asked, if women are so determined to climb the corporate ladder, why don’t we just let them have what they want, and stay at home looking after the kids and having coffee mornings with our friends. The reason this would not work is that women would immediately envy our life, and insist on having half of it.

      • #236 by Altimanix on November 9, 2012 - 8:05 PM

        “The Dangerous Book for Boys”?

      • #237 by James on November 10, 2012 - 5:51 PM

        That looks good – the contents page on Amazon shows it has instructions for making a bow and arrow, so it hasn’t been completely sanitized. There are also some good books this year with compilations of 1950s/60s articles from “The Eagle”, but they are probably too old-fashioned for modern kids, they are intended for the nostalgia market.

    • #238 by Hamster Tamer on November 12, 2012 - 3:30 PM

      This has caused the apex fallacy to run amok.
      … “Attractive man” is now one of the following:

      1, an extreme douchebag

      6. a man at the very top of his profession (but it must be a prestigious profession, such as law, medicine, entertainment, or business)

      Deti must be in an especially chipper mood today, i.e. he’s being extra kind to wimminz by leaving out most of the (faux) Alphas that result from The Dark Triad, to wit:

      7. UNemployed grifters, so long as they have large tattoos, and enough .gov “assistance” to keep a motorcycle on the road;

      8. UNemployed THUGS, so long as they’re the toughest thug among the 8 apts. of the East end of the 4th floor of “The Projects” [roll]

      9. Genuine VIOLENT FELONS–REPEAT offenders–even if still in prison! [eek]

      (To those wimminz who “just can’t believe” females have NEVER been allowed to vote, in ALL of human history (until VERY recently), no matter how advanced the civilization, you need only grok #7-9… this was no surprise to our “patriarchal” forefathers, across all of time!)

  45. #239 by deti on November 9, 2012 - 2:23 PM

    Another couple of differences:

    5. Feminism brooks absolutely no dissent in its ranks. Except for unfettered abortion rights, there is near-universal, top-to-bottom, lockstep agreement on all of feminism’s major precepts. Any person failing to toe the line on feminism’s beliefs is not only kicked out of the movement, but is made the subject of an active campaign to destroy his/her life through social, political, cultural and economic ostracism, marginalization and demonizing. No such thing exists in the manosphere, which includes a wide range of opinions. Men are also not kicked out for dissenting; but rather are debated.

    6. Feminism believes “the personal is political”, and uses the power of government to codify its tenets into law, effect its objectives, and crush opposition. Feminism has been spectacularly successful in this regard. Most in the manosphere don’t agitate for political reform, other than perhaps family law and divorce reform. But most in the manosphere also recognize the futility of that. Most around these parts believe the personal is personal, and the political is the political. Most around here want government to leave them alone so they can further their own aims and objectives, rather than attempt to use government for those purposes.

  46. #240 by NMH on November 10, 2012 - 8:16 AM

    May I propose Deti’s second law: Deti will post great commentary at a consistent rate through time. If one blog is not active (ie Darlock’s) he will post on another (PM’s).

    I wonder what Deti does for a living? How can he post so much during working hours?

    Also, I wonder how manosphere realities have affected his relationship with his wife? Is it possible that through employed “game” he appears more masculine to his wife thus turning her on, yet manosphere truths make him act more bitter and cynical about LTR’s (ie the relationship with men and women within an LTR). In my own experience, my gf is very relationship oriented and manosphere truths to her make it seem that women and men are too competitive and not complimentry, She thinks manosphere truths make me too bitter and cynical about LTR’s, and she may be right.

    • #241 by deti on November 10, 2012 - 10:07 AM

      NMH:

      Actually, deti’s Second Law is this: whenever a man and woman claim to have an “egalitarian” relationship or marriage, the woman is the dominant partner.

      YMMV but I can tell you Game has improved our relationship because I have become more dominant in our relationship. That’s consisted mainly of taking a position and sticking to it; imposing my will on the relationship far more, determining the overall direction of our life together, and just refusing to put up with her shenanigans.

      Getting older has helped too. I’ve found age has a decided effect on my ability and willingness to put up with shit from anyone. But at the same time I have found some purpose in posting in the ‘sphere about these issues.

    • #242 by deti on November 10, 2012 - 10:12 AM

      I have noticed a decided shift in my attitudes about women in general, I must admit. Knocking the pedestal out from under women and bringing them into sharp focus has shown me their flaws. The base behavior of women is every bit as ugly, self-serving and destructive as anything men have done or been accused of. I have seen women do things I had no idea they were capable of. In the past I saw women say and do things that I had no explanation for until I came to the manosphere.

      I have to say that knowing the truth has caused more than a little bitterness and cynicism in me.

      • #243 by fi on November 10, 2012 - 12:34 PM

        “The base behavior of women is every bit as ugly, self-serving and destructive as anything men have done or been accused of. I have seen women do things I had no idea they were capable of. ”

        Well yes. Women could have told you that. There are pleasant and kind ones and unpleasant/cruel/sefish/nasty ones. Whether women can be worse than men, or just appear worse because we expect them to be nurturing and kind etc, I don’t know. No sex has a monopoly on unpleasant qualities :)

      • #244 by deti on November 10, 2012 - 12:39 PM

        fi:

        “Women could have told you that. There are pleasant and kind ones and unpleasant/cruel/sefish/nasty ones.”

        Not a single one told me that until I was 42 years old and came here. Until then I honestly believed I was the ENTIRE problem in every one of my interactions with women. Women constantly told me that, from my mother down to my sisters, to my friends, EVERYONE. Even my dad told me women were sugar and spice and everything nice.

      • #245 by fi on November 10, 2012 - 12:57 PM

        Deti – history is littered with examples of women who did horrible things, books and films are full of them – Mean Girls which is aimed at teenagers (but is excellent btw) is about vile girls. Had you never read a newspaper story about something awful a woman had done? Or listened to your mother complaining about your father and found yourself agreeing with him? What about the wives and mistresses of men like Hitler and Goering – did you not wonder whether they were completly unaware or whether they knew and were complicit? How can anyone not notice that women can be horrible? :D

      • #246 by fi on November 10, 2012 - 1:17 PM

        But I do recognise that if you ignored all the evidence and put women on a pedestal, then the eventual denouement would be shocking.

      • #247 by deti on November 10, 2012 - 2:01 PM

        “How can anyone not notice that women can be horrible?”

        I am such a glutton for punishment.

        fi, you’re not really this obtuse, are you?

        Your examples have NOTHING to do with male-female relationships. I was specifically told, instructed and raised that girlfriends and wives:

        1. NEVER EVER lie, ever, about anything;
        2. Want relationships and marriage, not sex and hookups
        3. Want good, kind, nice men who give them what they want
        4. Never ever mistreat husbands
        5. Never ever cheat on good men

        Every woman in my life (and the men too) told me that. All of them. It was a massive misinformation campaign, plain and simple.

      • #248 by fi on November 10, 2012 - 2:39 PM

        Yes. But if you can accept that women can be horrible to each other, and other people, it’s not such a leap to believe they can be horrible to their boyfriends/ husbands too.

      • #249 by just visiting on November 10, 2012 - 2:52 PM

        Deti, I think that the Christianity angle gets mixed into it. It’s possible that they thought that you’d settle down with a nice Christian girl and that this would be the case.

        Much of what’s going on today isn’t just hypergamy. It’s concupiscence. At levels that your parents or their parents probably didn’t have experience with.

      • #250 by James on November 10, 2012 - 6:33 PM

        “’The base behavior of women is every bit as ugly, self-serving and destructive as anything men have done or been accused of. I have seen women do things I had no idea they were capable of. ‘

        “Well yes. Women could have told you that.”

        They could have told us that. But they didn’t.

        Instead they told us that, if a woman divorces a man, it’s because of something he did. If she commits adultery, it’s because he had allowed their marriage to deteriorate. If a man does something bad, he is responsible. If a woman does something bad, it’s because a man made her do it.

        You will find this trope time and time again, especially in the “liberal” sector of the press, but also in the mainstream. A woman murders her husband – he must have been abusive to her, and the sistahs will picket the court asking for her to be released from prison. A woman realises at 40 that she can’t find a husband – no one outside the Manosphere thinks to ask whether she has been looking for 20 years, or six months.

        I gave up on the Guardian and the New Statesman 25 years ago because I could no longer skip the offending pages and ignore the wholesale abdication of responsibility on behalf of half the human race. If I am now a reactionary Daily-Mail-reading bastard, the person who was most effective in persuading me to change my mind was Polly Toynbee.

      • #251 by fi on November 10, 2012 - 7:59 PM

        Polly Toynbee. Shudder :roll:
        She is a mad woman and best avoided and ignored.

      • #252 by LostSailor on November 10, 2012 - 8:38 PM

        James, that’s because feminism at its root is all about rights without responsibilities…

      • #253 by James on November 11, 2012 - 6:52 AM

        @fi

        Isn’t it interesting just how far a mad woman can rise? “Social Affairs Correspondent” of the BBC, and frequently invited to comment in that capacity as part of the TV news.

        The BBC is required by its charter to be “balanced” in its news output. An example often given is that, if they interview a poacher, they should also interview a gamekeeper. Yet in this case they are interviewing a mad person and forgetting to interview a sane one as well.

      • #254 by Fi on November 11, 2012 - 7:11 AM

        @James :)
        And she loves Gordon Brown which is enough evidence against her anyway.

  47. #255 by ProAlpha on November 10, 2012 - 9:13 AM

    “clockwatcher” is that luna laredo woman from the chivalry rant, isn’t she? i thought you said you wouldn’t be commenting anymore. just go away, another screename and coming back after you said you wouldn’t makes you and your gender look terrible.

  48. #256 by PennyF on November 10, 2012 - 2:38 PM

    In my experience as a 40 something physically fit childless woman, divorced, (no alimony…where is this planet in which women like me get alimony????), lots of men still want me and I have no shortage of dates. Sought after, yes, but they aren’t interested in anything more than what I call a glorified friend with benefits situation. I just ended a four month “relationship” for this very reason, and I feel quite disappointed.

    Now that I have had a week to think about it, I have to a conclusion. Among the group of men who find me attractive and date-worthy, the ones who want me as a “girlfriend” are the ones who *need* me as a girlfriend. They are the ones whose lives are in disarray, who are facing health problems, who have financial issues. This is a conundrum because I am like most women in that I find male neediness to be a turn-off. Perhaps I need to suck it and start dating men with health problems who are 50+. It seems to me that as a 42 year old woman, they are the only ones who otherwise have it together and will consider me for a committed relationship.

    • #257 by Hamster Tamer on November 11, 2012 - 11:37 PM

      Yep, real life. OTOH, since makin’ babies is not on the table, the more you can override your hardwired “programming” about mate selection, the more choices you’ll have, and probably more happiness as a result. But… I’m gonna say only about 1 woman in 4,000 can accomplish such an override… pity.

  49. #258 by just visiting on November 10, 2012 - 5:11 PM

    In regards to middle aged dating,
    I have to be honest, I never gave much thought to my low N until I hit the sphere. Like Anais, I was married as a teen, and now divorced. But, marriage is a hard enough thing to aspire to in middle age. Let alone worrying about number count. I have some decisions to make, and to be honest, I’m not sure that I can get around carousel lite.

    • #259 by Hamster Tamer on November 11, 2012 - 11:31 PM

      … I’m not sure that I can get around carousel lite.

      There’s NO way around… only THRU! Text me, I’m located in the same Den of In as TPM.

      I kid!… I’m a kidder. ;^)

  50. #260 by Spacetraveller on November 12, 2012 - 6:41 AM

    Incredibly late to THIS party, I really do hope that Clockwatcher will reply to my comment. I was fascinated by her and Deti’s (and to a lesser extent James’ and Fi’s comments too) on the current state of the SMP.

    I think Deti and CW actually are very much on the same side, but come from different angles, because of their respective genders.
    I agree with 100% of what Deti says, because I know his comments make sense. But I have the same difficulties as CW in overtly ‘slutshaming’ women. I tried it once or twice on my blog, and I really felt bad about that. I think the best way to approach ‘failing’ women is to use positive language/alternative choices approach, rather than ‘shaming’. And I think this is what CW is aiming for.

    This will of course infuriate men here, and I can see why.

    But which would you prefer? Women getting it right, or having it all your way, with the risk of putting off women?

    I like CW’s idea of getting Christian men and women with the same values together. I have never encountered a situation where this is done in a successful way, and I hope she will be able to do this.

    I had never heard of Bai Macfarlane, but thanks to CW’s link, I read about this unfortunate woman. Her story is one that will always remind me of the ‘exceptions’ that are conveniently forgotten in The Manosphere. But these good, principled women do exist. I think CW and I are always going to focus on these ‘exceptions’ (like her widowed friend) because these women are foremost in our minds and we don’t wish for them to be forgotten.

    But of course, the generalisations of which Deti and James speak are the rule of the day. They are the main issue, yes.

    It is quite humbling to hear about the downsides of female nature. But every woman who wants to improve her lot should listen to Deti, no matter how hard it is to do so.

    Although I am Christian, (actually I am Catholic) I recognise that many priests are becoming too ‘afraid’ to keep to the Church’s teaching when they counsel individuals. This is less a problem with the Catholic Church, but I notice that more and more, Catholic priests are becoming a bit less ‘strict’.

    So if your priest is telling you it’s OK to use contraception for example, (whatever your marital status), you should start to worry that you are now on your own in terms of moral guidance. If EVEN the Church is refusing to set you straight, you are ‘up a creek without a paddle’, so to speak. You are in trouble.

    This is where we are at now. Even the Church is bailing out on us. We are truly on our own.

    Deti is right. The wise men of The Manosphere are more ‘hardline’ than the Church. I never thought I’d see the day, but it has arrived.

    To get back on topic, yes a woman needs to be young(er) than a man, i.e. be as attractive as she can be to him, to attract him. So even a 40 something woman may be a prize to a 50 year old. But after that, as you men keep saying, a nice personality is everything, for a woman to continue to be attractive.

    Same as for a man, he needs to be (genuinely) confident at first to get his foot in the door, and then have nice ‘comfort’ traits to sustain a relationship with a woman.

    None of these is contrary to Christian principles.
    I might even venture as far as saying that perhaps God designed things this way.

    The problem is that a very high N interferes with a woman’s capabilities of ‘having a nice personality’ unfortunately. Deti has figured this out, as have many men here. And I too know this now. If a woman is to get back on track to have the stable family life she craves, she has to find a way to work at cultivating a different mindset that is not ANTI-man, for starters. Because a high N number easily becomes anti-man, rightly or wrongly.

    But alas, feminism (which is alla round us) is all about being ANTI-man, so the firstt hing that has to go is the feministic mindset.
    That would be hard for many women.
    Because feminism is a trap. A very cleverly-designed one indeed.

    Men and women on this blog should not really be fighting each other. We both have excellent contributions to make, but perhaps always from a different perspective.
    But this is OK, too, no?
    We should just learn to speak each other’s ‘language’ better.

    Deti already understands ‘female speak’, as he has a ‘hamsterlator’ LOL.
    CW, you have a gret grasp of what well-meaning Christian men and women need to get together.
    Why don’t you two form an allegiance of some sort and get to work to sort out this rotten SMP?
    I’ll be your first ‘collaborator’ if you need a fifth hand… :-)

    I am sure TPM is up for it as well…
    In any case, he is the gracious host here…

  51. #261 by ChickenDippaz on February 26, 2013 - 1:52 PM

    do all females hit “the wall” at the same age?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,510 other followers

%d bloggers like this: